The main legal point established in the judgment is the limitation on the correction of Record of Rights (ROR) and the availability of legal remedies under the Orissa Survey & Settlement Act, 1958.

JUDGMENT

SANJU PANDA, J.-The Petitioners have filed this Writ Petition challenging the Order Dated 28.3.2005 passed by the Sub-Collector, Kendrapara in Mutation Case No.347 of 2003.

2. The Petitioners filed Mutation Case No.347 of 2003 for mutation of the land in question in their names on the basis of the order passed by the Tahasildar, Aul in OLR Case No.137 of 1983. In the said OLR case, the land was settled in their names as Stitiban raiyat. They were paying rent regularly in pursuance of the said settlement. They are in possession of the property uninterruptedly. Opp. Party No.1 directed the R.I. to make an inquiry regarding possession of the Petitioners in respect of the disputed land. After making an inquiry, the R.I submitted report that the Petitioners are in possession of the land. He submitted corresponding Hal plots of the Sabik Plots. The case was then placed before the Addl. Tahasildar, who vide Order Dated 27.6.2003 after examining the report of the R.I. & the OLR records, directed to mutate the names of the Petitioners in respect of the disputed land i.e. Hal Plot No.1108 with an area of Ac.0.15 decimals in a separate khata by deleting the same from the Government Khata No.1854. After the appeal period was over, the ROR was corrected.

3. While the matter stood thus, Sub-Collector, Kendrapara, Opp. Party No.2, during his visit to the Tahasil Office on 19.2.2005 inspecting the records set aside the Order Dated 27.6.2003 without giving any notice to the Petitioners & directed the Tahasildar to take follow up action. Accordingly, on the direction of Opp. Party No.2, the names of the Petitioners were cancelled, previous status of the disputed land was reflected in the ROR with intimation to the R.I. & parties were informed through notice & public proclamation. After knowing the said proclamation, the Petitioners have filed the present Writ Petition.

4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the Sub-Collector has no jurisdiction to set aside the order passed by the Tahasildar without issuing notice to the Petitioners. Since the Tahasildar had corrected the ROR as per Section 47 of the Orissa Mutation Manual, the Sub-Collector should not have reviewed the same. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

5. Learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State, relying on the counter affidavit filed by Opp. Party No.1, submitted that in the Sabik Jamabandi Register, the disputed land had been recorded as Government land under Khata No.917, Plot No.908/ 2980 measuring an area of Ac.0.14 decs. in mouza-Salianch under Anabadi status. The kissam of the Plot was recorded as "Gadia". The Petitioners submitted a rent schedule that the case land was settled in their favour vide OLR Case No.137 of 1987 by the Tahasildar, Aul which was not available in the office as the same had been destroyed. The fact remains that in the Sabik record-of-rights no correction was effected as per OLR Case No.137 of 1987. He further submitted that the village was under settlement operation & the power & authority of the Tahasildar had already ceased during said settlement operation. On 9.12.2002, the Petitioners applied for mutation of the disputed land on the basis of the rent schedule for which Mutation Case No.347 of 2003 was initiated. The rent schedule is not a final document. On the contrary, the rent schedule is normally issued at the time of proceeding of the OLR Case. Showing the settlement of the disputed land in their favour, the Petitioners filed rent schedule to grab the land which is meant for public purpose i.e. Gadia. The Hal ROR was published in the year 1991. Therefore, the power of the Tahasildar had ceased after publication of the Hal ROR with effect from 30.9.2001. Accordingly, the Sub-Collector, Kendrapara, Opp. Party No.2, has rightly passed the impugned Order Dated 19.2.2005. Therefore, the same need not be interfered with.

6. From the rival submissions of the parties & after perusal of the records,