Settlement authorities' orders do not confer or extinguish title to property; parties retain the right to establish ownership through legal proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.

1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the Petitioner praying for quashing the final order dated 26.06.2020 (Annexure-2) passed by the Revenue Divisional Commissioner (S.D) Berhampur (O.P. No.1) in OSSARC No.326 of 2017 under Section 15 of the OS & S Act, 1958, wherein the prayer of the Petitioner and his brother i.e. Malaya Kanhar (O.P. No.6 in this writ petition) for recording the case land vide Plot Nos.745, 1440 and 2321 of Hal Khata No.237 in Mouza Gochhapada under Phiringia Tahasil in the District of Kandhamal in their names was refused.

2. The case of the Petitioner is that, he (Petitioner) along with his Brother i.e. Malaya Kanhar (O.P. No.6) are the owners of the case land vide Plot Nos.745, 1440 and 2321 under Hal Khata No.237 in Mouza Gochhapada and they are in possession over the same. The Sabik record thereof was in the name of their grandfather Natu Kanhar under Sabik Khata No.58. The total land of Natu Kanhar was Hc 2.8580r. Natu Kanhar had three sons namely Udenath Kanhar, Sudan Kanhar and Madan Kanhar. The Petitioner and the O.P. No.6 are the sons and successors of Sudan Kanhar.

During the life time of Sudan Kanhar, there was an amicable partition between the above three sons of Natu Kanhar in the year 1981 i.e. between Udenath, Sudan and Madan. On the basis of such partition, the case land along with other lands had fallen in the share of Sudan Kanhar and the same were recorded in the name of the Sudan Kanhar on the basis of such partition.

Since then, Sudan Kanhar was in possession over the same being the exclusive owner thereof. After the death of Sudan Kanhar, the case land left by Sudan Kanhar devolved upon the Petitioner and his brother i.e. Malaya Kanhar (O.P. No.6) and they (Petitioner and O.P. No.6) are the joint owners of the same. For which, except the Petitioner and the O.P. No.6, neither the O.P. Nos.4 and 5 (those are the sons of the Madan Kanhar) nor any other has any right, title, interest and possession over the same.

3. During settlement operation, the case lands were erroneously recorded in the name of the O.P. Nos.4 and 5 (sons of Madan Kanhar). The Petitioner and O.P. No.6 being the rustic illiterate villagers could not able to know the different stages of settlement operation as well as its final publication. For which, he (Petitioner) could not able to take appropriate steps during the settlement operation for recording of the case land in his name along with the O.P. No.6. The R.o.R. of the case land has been erroneously published on 08.10.2014 in the name of the O.P. Nos.4 and 5 by the Settlement Authorities. But, they (Petitioner and his brother i.e. O.P. No.6) came to know about the above erroneous recording of the case land in the name of the O.P. Nos.4 and 5 on September, 2017.

For which, they (Petitioner and O.P. No.6) filed revision under Section 15 (b) of the O.S. & S Act, 1958 vide OSSARC No.326 of 2017 before the Revenue Divisional Commissioner (S.D), Berhampur (O.P. No.1) praying for recording the case land in their names correcting the record of the same from the names of the O.P. Nos.4 and 5 After hearing from both the sides, the O.P. No.1 dismissed the said revision vide OSSARC No.326 of 2017 of the Petitioner and the O.P. No.6 of this writ petition on dated 26.06.2020 (Annexure-2) assigning the reasons that, “the case land was the ancestral properties of the Petitioner, O.P. No.6, O.P. No.4 and O.P. No.5, but, the Petitioners failed to submit any document