JUDGMENT :

Dr. A.K.Rath

1. In this writ petition, challenge is made to the order dated 15.4.2015, vide Annexure-4, passed by the Tahasildar, Lakhanpur, opposite party, in Misc. Case No.1 of 2015, whereby and whereunder the opposite party corrected the record-of-right (hereinafter referred to as “the ROR”) under Rule 34(e) of the Orissa Survey & Settlement Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”).

2. The case of the petitioners is that their forefathers were the recorded tenants of the land appertaining to Khata No.137 of Mouza-Sashajbhal under Lakhanpur Tahasil of Jharsuguda District in the Hamid settlement. The petitioners are in possession of the said property. While the matter stood thus, the opposite party initiated a suo motu proceeding,

which is registered as Misc. Case No.1 of 2015 and issued notice to them and other co-sharers. In the notice, vide Annexure-2, it is stated that as per verification, Plot No.752, Khata No.137 has an area Ac.1.090 dec., but in the ROR the area is mentioned as Ac.0.040 dec. Similarly, Plot No.753 appertaining to Khata No.161 is a Government plot having area of Ac.0.040 decimal as against Ac.1.090 dec. As per ROR, Plot No.753 is a pond, whereas Plot No.752 is the cultivable land. On verification, it was found that Plot No.752 is a pond and Plot No.753 is a cultivable land. Pursuant to issuance of notice, the co-sharers including the petitioners entered appearance and filed their objections, inter alia, challenging the maintainability of the proceeding. It is stated that the Settlement Commissioner has the jurisdiction to make any changes in the ROR and Map. Further, the proceeding was initiated to acquire the land appertaining to Plot No.753 for establishment of industry. By order dated 15.4.2015 opposite party allowed the misc. case.

3. Heard Mr. Ashok Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate along with Mr. K.A Guru, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Advocate General for the opposite party.

4. The sole question, inter alia, hinges for consideration is as to whether after publication of ROR, the Tahasildar, Lakhanpur has the jurisdiction to correct the same under Rule 34(e) of the Rules ?

5. Rule 34 of the Rules, which is the hub of the issue, is quoted below;

“34. Grounds on which correction of the record-of-rights and map is to be made-The Tahasildar may on application in that behalf of any person interested or on receipt of a report from any of his subordinate officers or on receipt of a notice from the Registrar or Sub-Registrar appointed under the Indian Registration Act, 1908, or from a Court or on his own motion, order any change of any entry in the record-of-rights according to the rules hereinafter prescribed on any one or more of the following grounds, namely;

(a) that all persons interested in any entry in the record-of-rights wish to have it changed;

(b) that by a decree in a civil suit, any entry therein has been declared to be erroneous;

(c) that being founded on a decree or order of a Civil Court or on the order of any competent authority, the entry therein is not in accordance with such decree or order;

(d) that such decree or order has subsequently been varied on appeal, revision or review;

(e) that any entry therein has no relationship with the existing facts; and

(f) that by preparation of a survey record under Chapter II of the Act, any change is necessitated in the record-of-rights.”

6. The subject-matter of dispute is no more res integra. An identical question came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ganesh Prasad Das v. Tahasildar, Dhamnagar and others, 1997 (I) OLR 13. The Bench, speaking through Justice P.K.Misra (as then he was), in paragraph-2 of the report came to hold that the provisions contained in Rule 34 (a) to (f) are self-explanatory and envisage various circumstances necessitating correction of ROR. Rule 34(e) has been couched in wide terms. It was further held that in view of the nature of jurisdiction c