Parties whose interests are affected must be provided an opportunity to be heard in proceedings concerning land rights, upholding the principle of natural justice.

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 the impugned orders dated 09.06.2023 (Annexure-13) and 15.09.2023 (Annexure-1) respectively passed in Settlement Revision Petition Case No.530 of 2022 by the Collector, Sundargarh (O.P. No.1).

2. The case of the Petitioners is that, the case land originally belonged to Raj Sarkar Sri Bira Mitra Pratap Sekhar Deo. The same was under Sabik Khata No.41, Plot No.423.

In its next settlement of the year 1976, the case land was recorded in the name of Madhu Routia and Khudan Routia.

After the death of Madhu Routia, his branch was represented through Mahadev Routia and others.

The Branch of Khudan Routia @ Singh was represented through Abhimanyu Singh and others.

Mahadev Routia, Prabhu Routia, Ghuran Routia and Khudan Routia stated to have executed a registered sale deed on dated 17.09.1966 in respect of the properties covered under Sabik Khata No.41, Plot No.423, Ac.2.38 decimals vide Annexure-3 in favour of Chaitanya Pasayat and Punu Pasayat.

The purchasers of the case land i.e. Chaitanya Pasayat and Punu Pasayat failed to produce their above sale deed dated 17.09.1966 before the Settlement Authorities during settlement operation of the year 1976 for recording of the case land in their names. For which, in the settlement of the year 1976, the case land was not recorded in their names.

Thereafter, Chaitanya Pasayat and Punu Pasayat filed Revision Revision No.250 of 2006 through one Gouranga Pasayat challenging the non-recording of the case land in their names. As the said Gouranga Pasayat had already expired prior to the filing of the said Revision No.250 of 2006, for which, that Revision No.250 of 2006 was dismissed for default on dated 01.03.2008. Then, the aforesaid purchasers of the case land remained silent.

In the year 2022, the legal heirs of the recorded tenants of the Hal R.o.R. of the case land wanted to sell the case land. As, by that time, Settlement Revision Petition Case No.530 of 2022 on being filed by the O.P. Nos.3 to 9 in respect of the case land was pending before the Collector, Sundargarh (O.P. No.1), for which, the legal heirs of the recorded tenants of the Hal R.o.R. of the case land wanted a clarification from the Sub- Registrar, Panposh, whether, sale deed in respect of the case land can be executed by them or not during the pendency of Settlement Revision Petition Case No.530 of 2022. For which, The Sub-Registrar, Panposh sought for a clarification about the same from the District Registrar, Registrar as per letter No.501 dated 14.12.2022 (Annexure-6), to which, The District Registrar, Sundargarh answered as per letter No.1556 dated 29.12.2022 (Annexure-7) that, there is no bar for the execution of sale deed in respect of the case land by the legal heirs of the recorded tenants of the Hal R.o.R.. On the basis of such clarification of the District Registrar, Sundargarh, the legal heirs of the Hal recorded tenants of the case land executed sale deed Nos.1712300314 and 1712300315 dated 09.02.2023 transferring the case land in favour of the Petitioners and delivered possession thereof. The Petitioners being the purchasers of the case land through the aforesaid two sale deeds dated 09.02.2023 applied before the Tahasildar, Lathikata (O.P. No.2) for mutation of the case land to their names by filing Mutation Case Nos.683 and 684 of 2023, but, the Taha