The main legal point established in the judgment is that the mere recording of a name in the Record of Rights does not create or extinguish title to sthitiban property, and the GA Department has the jurisdiction to consider representations and allot suitable plots in exchange of sthitiban land.

Headnote:
Record of Rights - Correction - Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, Section 15(b) - The court held that the mere recording of a name in the Record of Rights does not create or extinguish title to sthitiban property. The jurisdiction of the GA Department to consider the appellants' representation and allot them a suitable land in exchange of their sthitiban land was not considered by the learned Single Judge. The order of the learned Single Judge was set aside, and the GA Department was directed to consider the representation of the appellants and allot them a suitable plot in exchange of their sthitiban land within six months.
Fact of the Case:

The appellants sought correction of the Record of Rights (ROR) to record sthitiban land in their names or allotment of plots in their favor. The writ application was disposed of by the learned Single Judge, stating that the appellants should file a revision under Section 15(b) of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act before the Commissioner of the Settlement for correction of the ROR. The appellants challenged this finding in the writ appeal.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the mere recording of a name in the ROR does not create or extinguish title to sthitiban property. It held that the GA Department had the jurisdiction to consider the appellants' representation and allot them a suitable plot in exchange of their sthitiban land, which was not considered by the learned Single Judge. The order of the learned Single Judge was set aside, and the GA Department was directed to consider the representation of the appellants and allot them a suitable plot in exchange of their sthitiban land within six months.
Issues: The issues revolved around the correction of the Record of Rights to record sthitiban land in the appellants' names or allotment of plots in their favor, and the jurisdiction of the GA Department to consider the appellants' representation and allot them a suitable plot in exchange of their sthitiban land.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, specifically Section 15(b), and the jurisdiction of the GA Department to consider the appellants' representation and allot them a suitable plot in exchange of their sthitiban land.
Final Decision: The writ appeal was allowed, the order of the learned Single Judge was set aside, and the GA Department was directed to consider the representation of the appellants and allot them a suitable plot in exchange of their sthitiban land within six months.

JUDGMENT :

I.M. Quddusi, A.C.J.

1. In this writ appeal challenge has been made to the order dated 21.11.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 9069 of 2008 with regard to correction of Record of Rights in respect of the Petitioners' Plot No. 1516 in 1962 Settlement Operation which was a sthitiban land in Mouza-Nayapalli within the Bhubaneswar Municipality.

2. The facts as narrated in the record are as follows:

Originally as per the ROR published in the 1930-31 Settlement Operation, the disputed land belonged to Harekrushna Nisank, Jayakrushna Nisank and Dinakrushan Nisank. At a subsequent stage, the said land was bifurcated into two plots. Due to non-payment of the land revenue the Government started Certificate Case No. 514 of 1932 and vide order dated 3.4.1932 the said property was put into public auction. In the public auction on 25.8.1932, one Radhanath Parija of village Nayapalli took the property. Thereafter, Auction Certificate and possession thereto was granted on 22nd of November, 1932 whereafter Radhanath Parija became the owner in possession of the said property having right, title and interest over the same. After death of said Radhanath Parija, his wife Radhamani Dei succeeded to the property and her name was reflected in Jamabandi Khatiyan of the year 1937. Subsequently, Radhamani Dei sold the property to one Smt. Sulochana Devi, the wife of one Balamukund Das (the predecessor-in-interest of the present Appellants) and delivered possession of the said land in favour of the purchaser vide registered sale deed No. 175 dated 16.1.1946. The purchaser- Sulochana Dei's name was found in the Jamabandi Register Continuous Khatiyan in the year 1951 as recorded tenant in pursuance to the registered sale deed following delivery of possession. She being an old lady ignorant of law, could not take any proper step to get her name recorded in the Record of Right during 1962 Settlement Operation. In the said Settlement Operation one of the bifurcated plots having an area of Ac.0.735 decimals was recorded in the name of the Forest Department. The said plot was numbered as Plot No. 1516 in 1962 Settlement Operation. When it came to the knowledge of the Appellants that the land had been erroneously recorded in the name of the Forest Department, they raised objection and Appellant No. 3 filed Settlement Appeal No. 537 of 1990 before the Settlement Officer. In the said appeal the Settlement Officer observed that Hal Plot No. 1506 had already been given to the Reserve Bank of India for construction of staff quarters and the quarters had already been constructed. Since this was his sthitiban plot he could raise a claim with the GA Department but in view of the statement of R.I. it might not be proper for him to record Hal Plot No. 1506 in the name of the Petitioner though it was his sthitiban plot. The balance area of Ac.0.134 in Plot No. 1506/1 should be recorded in the sthitiban khata of the Petitioner. Similarly, Hal Plot No. 660/01 area Ac.2.493 decimals and Hal Plot No. 629/01 area Ac.0.105 decimals should also be recorded in the name of the Petitioner. The area of the plot should be corrected as necessary. With the above observations, the settlement appeal was disposed of on 1.3.1990.

3. After disposal of the said appeal, the Appellants approached the GA Department and issued legal notice to the Director, Estates of GA Department for allotment of equal extent of land in exchange of their land which had been illegally allotted to the Reserve Bank of India by the GA Department. In spite of several approaches, since no action was taken, the Appellants made a representation to the Chief Minister of Orissa on 18.11.2001 and prayed for allotment of Ac.0.400 decimals of land from Plot No. 1474 on payment of usual premium and an area of Ac.0.430 decimals of land from Plot Nos. 1474(P) and 1493(P) which are adjacent to Plot No. 1495 in Mouza Jayadev Vihar over which they have constructed residential house and made

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis