Naba Kumar Nanda Vs State of Odisha

“It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit this writ application issue Rule NISI in the nature of a writ of mandamus/certiorari, calling upon the Opp. Party authorities, as to why the impugned order dated 28.01.2026 vide ANNEXURE-9 passed by the 0pp. Party No. 5, i.e., the Tahasildar, Angul, shall not be

¶16

Page 1 of 12

¶17

set-aside/quashed and further as to why he shall not be directed to change the Kissam of the land of the petitioner, i.e., Khata No. 271, Plot No. 574, measuring an area about Ac.1.240 decimals of land. Plot No. 572, measuring an area about 0.170 decimals of land, under Mouza- Hulurisingha, Tahasil -Angul, from Bandhahuda and Bandha to Kissam Patita as per the decision taken by the Opp. Party No.2 RDC (ND), Sambalpur, in the Committee meeting dated 13.06.2025 vide ANNEXURE-6.

¶18

And if the Opp. Parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause, the said Rule be made absolute and the impugned order dated 28.01.2026 vide ANNEXURE-9 passed by the Opp. Party No.5, i.e., the Tahasildar, Angul, be set-aside/quashed and further the Opp. Party No.5 i.e., The Tahasildar, Angul be directed to change the Kissam of the land of the petitioner, i.e., Khata No. 271, Plot No. 574, measuring an area about Ac 1 240 decimals of land. Plot No. 572, measuring an area about 0.170 decimals of land, under Mouza- Hulurisingha, Tahasil - Angul, from Bandhahuda and Banda to Kissam Patita as per the decision taken by the Opp. Party No.2 RDC (ND), Sambalpur, in the Committee meeting dated 13.06.2025 vide ANNEXURE-6.

¶19

And may pass any order(s), direction(s), relief(s) as deemed fit and proper;

¶20

And, for this act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray ”

¶21

The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the petitioner is the joint owner of land bearing Khata No.271, Plot No.574 measuring an area of Ac.1.240 dec.. Nature (Kissam) of the land is said to be Bandha. He is also the owner in possession of Plot No.572 measuring an area of Ac.0.170 dec. of nature (kissam)- Bandhabuda. Both the

¶22

Page 2 of 12

¶23

plots are situated in Mouza- Hulurisingha in the district of Angul. It is claimed that the lands have, over time, lost their original nature and never been used as water reservoir (Jalasaya). The petitioner therefore, filed an application on 27.03.2023 before the Tahasildar, Angul with request to convert the nature (kissam) of the land into Gharabari as per Rule-34(e) of Odisha Survey and Settlement Rules, 1962 (in short ‘OS & S Rules, 1962’). The Tahasildar initiated Revenue Misc. Case No. 12/2023 and directed the Revenue Inspector, Sadar, Angul to conduct enquiry. The R.I. made necessary enquiry and submitted report before the Tahasildar on 06.06.2023. In the said

¶24

report, it is stated that the petitioner is the co-owner of the land and during field verification it was found that the case land is lying vacant and is plain in nature. The report was accompanied by some photographs of the land. The Tahasildar also conducted a field enquiry on 12.07.2023 and found that there is no pond available over the case land. He also did not find any obstruction to any natural flow of water being caused by the lands in question.

¶25

Page 3 of 12

¶26

Accordingly, he submitted the case record before the SubCollector, Angul on 12.07.2023 requesting him to submit the case record before the Collector, Angul. Be it noted that while the matter was thus pending, the Executive Officer, Angul Municipality requested the Tahasildar, Angul to ascertain if there is any drainage facility available to the plot and the nature (Kissam) of land may be changed after construction of the drain and provision for natural water discharge. A joint field enquiry was conducted by the Tahasildar and the Executive Officer, Angul Municipality on 28.08.2023 and a report was submitted stating that there is proper concrete drainage facility available adjacent to the plot. The case record of the Revenue Misc. Case was thereafter placed before the Committee constituted under the Chairmanship of the RDC (ND), Sambalpur. The Collector finding that certain objections required to be complied with before changing the nature (Kissam) of the land, requested the Tahasildar to do the needful. The Tahasildar conducted further enquiry and submitted his report recommending change of the nature (Kissam) of the

¶27

Page 4 of 12

¶28

land. The record being placed before the Committee, the matter was considered and the committee was satisfied that the change of the nature (Kissam) of the land as requested by the petitioner was justified. Accordingly, as per the proceeding in the meeting held on 13.06.2025 the committee unanimously recommended to change the nature (Kissam) of the land from Bandhahuda and Bandha to Patita Kissam. The Tahasildar was directed to make necessary changes in the ROR as per Rule 34(e) of the OS & S Rules, 1962 and to take follow up action. Necessary

¶29

order in this regard was also issued by the office of the RDC on 24.06.2025. Despite such order, the Tahasildar, Angul purportedly acting upon letter dated 21.06.2025 of the Additional Secretary to Government in Revenue and Disaster Management Department expressed his inability to correct the ROR as per the proceeding of the committee for change of nature (Kissam).

¶30

Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the above prayer.

¶31

Page 5 of 12

¶32

4. An affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite

¶33

parties, inter alia stating as follows:

¶34

“That, it is respectfully submitted that the Revenue Misc Case No. 12/2023 for change of kisam from "Bandha & Bandhahuda to Patita in Mouza - Hulurisingha has been received from Collector & District Magistrate, Angul vide letter No. 2993/File No. XIY-7912024 Dated 18.07.2025 along with a copy of duly approved proceeding of the committee meeting held on 13.06.2025 for taking follow up action as per Govt. Provision of Law and further it has been requested to go through the contents of the letter No. 22496/R&DM Dt. 21.06.2025 of Revenue & Disaster Management Department and take necessary steps as per instruction of Govt. In this letter, RDC, ND, Sambalpur has been requested to enquire into the mass petition filed by the villagers and submission of detailed report in the matter to the Revenue & Disaster Management Department at an early.”

¶35

The impugned letter of the Tahasildar is sought to

¶36

be justified thus.

¶37

Heard Mr. B. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Gyanalok Mohanty, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶38

Mr. Mohanty would submit that once the

¶39

committee headed by the RDC, which was constituted pursuant to the judgment passed by the Division Bench of

¶40

this Court in Tapan Kumar Das vs. Commissioner,

¶41

Page 6 of 12

¶42

Cuttack Municipal Corporation and others [ W.P.(C) No.

¶43

8797 of 2004] and batch, directed changing the nature of

¶44

the land after observing all formalities, it is not open to the Tahasildar to take a contrary view. He further submits that the Additional Secretary to Government has no jurisdiction whatsoever to sit in appeal over the decision taken by the committee. Mr. Mohanty further submits that even otherwise, the land being a private land admittedly owned by the petitioner, a complaint submitted by a third person cannot be entertained.

¶45

Mr. Gyanalok Mohanty, learned State Counsel, on the other hand, would submit that while examining the matter at the level of the Government it was found that the Tahasildar had left out certain important aspects while submitting his report, for which the Government instructed the RDC to revisit the recommendation made by the committee.

¶46

Before delving into the merits of the rival contentions, this Court would first keep in perspective the

¶47

Page 7 of 12

¶48

decision of the Division Bench in the case of Tapan Kumar Das (supra), wherein the question of conversion of water bodies to other nature of land in Cuttack City was considered. The following observations of the Division Bench being relevant are reproduced below:

¶49

“ xx xx xx

¶50

(2) The R.D.C. (C.D.), Cuttack, under his chairmanship shall form a Committee not exceeding seven members including the Vice-Chairman, C.D.A., Municipal Commissioner, CMC, Cuttack, and an Environmentalist of the State Pollution Control Board, Odisha. Needless to say, the other members of the Committee shall be nominated by the R.D.C. The Committee shall deal with the protection, preservation and conservation of water-bodies in the city and shall take decisions accordingly.

¶51

(3) The applications for change of classification/kissam of lands from Jalasaya to homestead shall be processed through the Tahasildar, Sadar, Cuttack, to the Collector for appropriate orders. The decision of the Collector shall be placed before the Committee as constituted above for approval. Only after approval of the Committee, change of classification/kissam of the land shall be allowed. The Committee shall record the reasons for allowing change of classification/kissam of such lands. However, if the Committee is of the opinion that the lands, which have lost their character as Jalasaya, and those, which are actually not Jalasayas or swampy lands but have been recorded as Jalasaya, change of classification of such lands may be allowed. This shall be effective from the date of the judgment.”

¶52

Pursuant to such order, the Government issued a

¶53

notification on 22.12.2017 to instruct all RDCs of the State

¶54

Page 8 of 12

¶55

regarding constitution of committee under the Chairmanship of RDCs for safeguard of Jalasaya Kissam land in urban areas. Said notification is reproduced below:

¶56

In the instant case there is no dispute that the lands in question belonged to the petitioner. It is also not disputed that the lands are not used as water reservoirs and are plain lands. The report of the Tahasildar and joint

¶57

field visit report of the Tahasildar and Executive Officer,

¶58

Page 9 of 12

¶59

Municipality, copy of which has been enclosed as Annexxure-4 to the writ application, clearly mentions so. Taking all these facts into consideration, the committee headed by the RDC took a unanimous decision to direct change of the nature (Kissam) of the land. It has not been demonstrated as to how the decision so taken is contrary to any law or otherwise unjustified. The Committee has also taken specific note of the observations of the Collector, which are quoted in the proceedings itself. Once the committee has taken a decision, the Tahasildar obviously cannot take a contrary view as it amounts to violation of the proviso to Rule 35 of the OS & S Rules, 1962. That apart, in view of the ratio decided in Tapan Kumar Das (supra), the committee headed by RDC is the supreme authority in the matter. The Additional Secretary to the Department, by way of an official communication cannot ask the committee to revisit its decision, which, as stated earlier, is based on consideration of all the relevant factors.

¶60

Simply by mentioning that certain further factors are required to be considered, the unanimous decision of the

¶61

Page 10 of 12

¶62

committee cannot be set at naught. Nothing has been placed before this Court to show that the so called scientific or field base assessment of ‘core’ issues referred to in the letter dated 21.06.2025 of the Additional Secretary are prescribed by any law.

¶63

This Court is therefore, of the considered view that once the Government has constituted an authority and conferred it with power to take a decision regarding change of the nature of the land after following definite procedure, it is not open to it to simply brush aside its decision. It has not been spelt out as to why the so-called core issues need

¶64

be investigated into in the case at hand. In any case, the matter appears to have arisen out of a grievance filed by one Bhagirathi Dehury and others of village Hulurisingha. This Court finds that they being in no way connected to the private land of the petitioner can hardly be said to be persons having definite locus standi to raise such grievance, particularly after the committee has taken a decision.

¶65

Page 11 of 12

¶66

For the foregoing reasons therefore, the writ application is allowed. The impugned order under Annexure-9 is set aside. The Tahasildar is directed to act

¶67

upon the directions contained in the proceedings of the meeting held on 13.06.2025 without any further delay and in any case, not later than four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him by the petitioner.

¶68

Sashikanta Mishra, J

¶69

Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 22^nd July, 2026/ A.K. Rana, P.A.

¶70

Signature Not Verified

¶71

Digitally Signed Signed by: AJAYA KUMAR RANA Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 24-Jul-2026 19:25:53

¶72

Page 12 of 12

Naba Kumar Nanda v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naba Kumar Nanda v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sabita Chhotray Vs State of Odisha

Harish Chandra Mohanty Vs State of Odisha

Sarbeswar Mall Vs State of Odisha

Kanya Kumari Rao Vs State of Odisha

Sarfaraj Ahmad Vs State of Odisha

Appolo Consultancy and Construction Pvt.Ltd, Bhubaneswar Vs State of Odisha