IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
K.R. MOHAPATRA, SAVITRI RATHO, JJ.
Tilottama Bahinipati – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 19620 of 2024
Decided On : 13-11-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of land lease and disputes. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding land use and resumption. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court observations on evidentiary issues. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. confirming use of land for agriculture. (Para 8 , 10) |
| 5. discretion in maintaining writ jurisdiction. (Para 9 , 12) |
| 6. ruling and order for land recording. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT :
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Petitioner in this writ petition seeks to assail the order dated 2nd July, 2024 (Annexure-9) passed by the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar in WL Case No.1278 of 1974 initiated under Section 3 -B of the Odisha Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 (for brevity ‘the Act’) whereby, the lease granted to the lessee was resumed. The Petitioner also prays for a direction to the authorities to prepare the RoR in the name of the Petitioner.
3. Shorn of unnecessary details, WL Case No.1278 of 1974 was initiated by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar and Plot No.1958 of Khata No.805 to an extent of Ac.1.000 dec. under mouza- Andharua in the district of Khordha (previously in the district of Puri) (for brevity ‘the case land’) was leased out in favour of one Kumar Swain, son of Indira Swain of Andharua (for brevity ‘the lessee’). After death of the lessee, his widow, namely, Hara Bewa obtaining permission of the Revenue Officer, sold the case land to the Petitioner vide RSD No.3336 dated 15th January, 1982 (Annexure-1) for legal necessity and delivered possession. Since then, the Petitioner possesses the case land exercising her right, title and interest thereon. When the matter stood thus, the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar initiated Revision Case No.169 of 1986 against the lessee, namely, Kumar Swain under Section 7 -A (3) of the Act and the lease was cancelled vide order dated 23rd July, 1987. Since the Petitioner was not afforded with any opportunity of hearing in Revision Case No.169 of 1986, she approached this Court in OJC No.10590 of 1996 and this Court, vide order dated 23rd June, 1997, set aside the order dated 23rd July, 1987 and remitted the matter to the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar for fresh hearing of the Revision Case providing opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. Accordingly, the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar heard the Revision Case afresh and vide his order dated 31st October, 2020, confirmed the lease granted in WL Case No.1278 of 1974. He, further held the transfer of the case land by Hara Bewa to the Tilottama Bahinipati (the Petitioner) to be established as per the evidence and materials on record. Accordingly, the Petitioner applied for mutation of the case land in her name. Form-K was issued by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar on 8th June, 2001. Since the settlement operation in the area had already commenced by then, the Petitioner produced all documents before the Assistant Settlement Officer, Camp Court, Bhubaneswar on 15th July, 2013. However, the Assistant Settlement Officer, Camp Court, Bhubaneswar directed to record the land in the name of the State Government. Assailing the same, the Petitioner filed Suit No.1153 of 2013 under Section 22 (2-b) of the Odisha Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 (for brevity ‘the Settlement Act’). The Additional Sub- Collector, Bhubaneswar disposed of the Appeal vide order dated 5th September, 2013 directing the Petitioner to approach the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar or any other forum for redressal of her claim. As the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar lacked jurisdiction to entertain the grievance of the Petitioner and it was not redressed by the Additional Sub-Collector, Bhubaneswar, the Appellate Authority, Petitioner moved this Court in W.P.(C). No.3456 of 2014. However, taking into consideration that final RoR under Section 12 -B of the Settlement Act was published by then, this Court, vide order dated 4th April, 2018, declined to interfere with the matter and disposed of the writ petition advising the Petitioner to file revision before
The resumption of land under Section 3-B cannot be solely based on observations of land lying fallow; substantial evidence of actual non-use for its intended purpose is required.
An order made without jurisdiction is void and cannot be sustained; ownership rights established must be recognized despite conflicting authority actions.
An order made without jurisdiction is null and void, reinforcing the established property rights in land ownership disputes under the Odisha Survey and Settlement Act, 1958.
A writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 is maintainable when statutory authorities act without jurisdiction, allowing for correction of records even after finalization.
Orders made by statutory authorities lacking jurisdiction can be challenged in writ petitions, especially when valid leases are ignored, affirming the court's authority to rectify such errors.
The court ruled that administrative bodies must act within jurisdiction, and violations of due process make orders void, reinforcing the court's authority to intervene in such instances.
Writ petitions are maintainable where statutory authorities exceed or usurp their jurisdiction, particularly when prior valid leases are ignored, necessitating correction of Record of Rights in favor....
Authority cannot cancel confirmed leases under a different statute, maintaining jurisdiction of High Court to intervene when lower authority exceeds legal bounds.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.