An order made without jurisdiction is void and cannot be sustained; ownership rights established must be recognized despite conflicting authority actions.

JUDGMENT :

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. The Petitioner in this writ petition seeks to assail the order dated 6^th August, 2013 (Annexure-5) passed by the Additional Sub-Collector-cum-Settlement Officer, Bhubaneswar in Appeal Case No.4163 of 2013.

3. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that initially, Plot No.583/1651 to an extent of Ac.1.000 decimals of Khata No.325/59 in Mouza Pathargadia under Bhubaneswar Tahasil in the district of Khurda (erstwhile district of Puri) was leased out in the name of one, Pitabasa Behera by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar in W.L. Lease Case No.1645 of 1974 and Record of Right (RoR) was prepared in his name. Subsequently, said Pitabasa Behera, for his legal necessity, sold out different portions of the leasehold property to different persons through his Power of Attorney holder, namely, Sura Pratap Singh Samanta. The Petitioner purchased Ac.0.100 decimals of leasehold property vide Registered Sale Deed (RSD) No.770 dated 23^rd March, 1993 and was delivered with possession. Subsequently, the Petitioner filed Mutation Case No.3167 of 1995 and the land purchased by her was bifurcated from the leasehold property and was recorded in the name of the Petitioner in Plot No.583/1651/2582 to an extent of Ac.0.100 decimals under Khata No.325/925 of Mouza- Pathargadia under Bhubaneswar Tahasil in the district of Khurda (for brevity ‘the case land’).

3.1 When the matter stood thus, suo motu Revision Case No.841 of 1998 was initiated by learned Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar against the lessee, namely, Pitabasa Behera and the lease granted in his favour was cancelled vide order dated 28^th July, 1998. Although the Petitioner was the rightful owner in possession over the case land, but she was not served with notice of the aforesaid suo motu revision case initiated under Section 7 -A(3) of the Odisha Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 (for brevity ‘the OGLS Act’). Thus, the Petitioner being aggrieved, filed W.P.(C) No.4824 of 2023 along with Smt. Bharati Satpathy, Chandrasekhar Deo and Snehalata Das, who had purchased different parcels of the leasehold property. This Court vide order dated 20^th November, 2003, set aside the order passed in suo motu Revision Case No.841 of 1998 and remitted the matter to learned Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar for fresh adjudication of the revision in accordance with law. Accordingly, the Petitioner and other co-purchasers appeared before learned Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar and contested the proceeding.

3.2. Upon hearing the purchasers including the Petitioner, learned Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar dropped the suo motu Revision Case No.841 of 1998 vide order dated 21^st June, 2006. Thus, the Petitioner became the absolute owner in possession over the case land. It is further submitted by Mr. Mishra, learned counsel that the Petitioner is still in possession over the case land by exercising her right, title and interest thereon. The mutation RoR was also prepared in her name vide Annexure-3 and she was paying the land revenue. When the matter stood thus, settlement operation started in the area and the Asst. Settlement Officer without verifying the record, directed to record the land in Government khata under ‘Abada Jogya Anabadi’ status. The Petitioner being aggrieved, filed an appeal under Section 12 -A of the Odisha Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 (for brevity ‘the Settlement Act’) in Appeal Case No.4163 of 2013. The Additional Sub-Collector- cum-Settlement Officer, Bhubaneswar without appreciating the matter in its proper perspective