Back
2025 Supreme(Ori) 127
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
A.C. BEHERA, J.
Rabindranath Parida (dead) and others - Petitioners
Versus
State of Odisha and others - Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.9985 of 2014
Decided On : 22-08-2025
For the Petitioners:Mr. N. K. Sahu, Advocate.
For the Opposite Parties : Smt. J. Sahoo, Addl. Standing Counsel.
The Settlement Authority lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate on land title disputes; only the Collector under the O.E.A. Act has the authority to set aside transfers based on specific legal conditions.
Headnote:(A) O.S.S. Act, 1958 - Sections 15(b) and 6(d); O.E.A. Act, 1951 - Section 5(i) - Writ petition for quashing final order rejecting petitioners' claim over land recorded under Rakhit Khata in favor of the Government - Dismissal of revision petition held invalid; Settlement Authority lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate on titles - Jurisdiction for setting aside transfers lies with the Collector only in specified conditions. (Paras 2, 6, 15)
(B) Natural Justice - Ensuring opportunities for fair hearing is fundamental. (Para 17)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought to challenge the denial of land ownership during a settlement operation, where prior transactions indicated ownership through valid sale deeds.
Findings of Court:
The impugned order was quashed due to lack of jurisdiction by the authority to question the validity of the sale deeds.
Issues: Whether the authority had the jurisdiction to question previous land transfers as per O.E.A. Act provisions?
Ratio Decidendi: Settlement Authorities cannot decide on matters of title and validity of sale deeds; such jurisdiction lies with the Collector under the O.E.A. Act, which was not followed in this case.
Result: Writ petition allowed, impugned order quashed, and case remitted back for fresh consideration.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. right to claim land ownership during settlement (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. scope of judicial review in settlement proceedings (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. jurisdiction of the collector under o.e.a. act (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. provisions of notice and appeals under o.e.a. act (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. limited authority of settlement officers in title disputes (Para 14 , 15) |
| 6. jurisdictional error leading to quashing of orders (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
JUDGMENT :
A.C. Behera, J.
This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioners praying for quashing (setting aside) the final order dated 19.02.2014 (Annexure-11) passed in Settlement Revision Case No.3013/843 of 1988 by the Addl. Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Balasore (Opposite Party No.2).
2. The factual backgrounds of this writ petition, which prompted the petitioners for filing of the same is that, when during major settlement operation, the case land was recorded under Rakhit Khata as per Annexure-9 in the name of Government of Odisha refusing the prayer of the petitioners for recording the same in their names, then the petitioners filed Settlement Revision Case No.3013/843 of 1988 under Section 15 (b) and 6(d) of the O.S.S. Act, 1958 for recording of the case land in their names stating in their revision petition that, Sitanath Sen and Gourmohan Sen were the ex-intermediaries of the case land and Hadibandhu Hazira was the super land lord thereof. The ex-intermediaries i.e. Sitanath Sen and Gourmohan Sen transferred the case land in favour of one Gajendra Narayan Panda by executing and registering a lease deed on dated 26.05.1942 (Annexure-2) and inducted him as a permanent tenant over the case land and as such, Gajendra Narayan Panda acquired right of occupancy over the case land and he (Gajendra Narayan Panda) sold the same to one Mahendranath Patra through registered sale deed No.3287 dated 27.05.1942.
Thereafter, on the basis of the subsequent sales of the case land chronologically, the case land was purchased by the predecessors of the petitioners in the year 1966 through sale deeds. But, when during settlement operation, the settlement authorities did not record the case land in the name of the petitioners, but recorded the same in the name of Government under Rakhit Khata as per Annexure-9, then the petitioners challenged the same by filing Settlement Revision Case No.3013/843 of 1988 under Sections 15 (b) and 6(d) of the O.S.S. Act, 1958 praying for recording the case land in their names.
After hearing, the Addl. Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Balasore (O.P. No.2) dismissed to the said Settlement Revision Case No.3013/843 of 1988 of the petitioners on dated 19.02.2014 (Annexure-11) assigning the reasons that,
“the land in question has been transferred prior to 01.01.1946, solely with the object of defeating the provisions of the O.E.A. Act or to claim higher compensation, hence provisions of Section 5(i) of the O.E.A. Act empowers the Collector to set aside such transfer and to take possession of the land from such person. Keeping in view these provisions of the O.E.A. Act, the petitioners have never approached the OEA Collector for settlement of rent, though the land in question was Anabadi land from the time of sale transaction dated 26.05.1946 by the so called ex-intermediaries. For which, the settlement authorities have rightly recorded the case land under Rakhit Khata No.568. Therefore, the Tahasildar, Remuna is directed to delete the illegal possession notes from the remarks columns of Rakhita Khata No.568. So, the revision petition filed by the petitioners being devoid of any merit is dismissed.”
3. On being aggrieved with the aforesaid dismissal order dated 19.02.2014 (Annexure-11) passed in Settlement Revision Case No.3013/843 of 1988 by the Addl. Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Balasore (O.P. No.2), the petitioners challenged the same by filing this writ petition under Artic
