Back
2025 Supreme(Ori) 937
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.
Rajanikanta Pattanaik - Petitioner
Versus
State of Odisha and others – Respondent
WP(C) No.19646 of 2025
Decided On : 03-09-2025
For the Petitioner:Mr.A.Mohanta, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr.S.Nayak, A.S.C.
Settlement Authorities must adhere to Civil Court judgments, regardless of how those judgments were rendered.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 226 and 227 - Writ petition for quashing impugned order by Revenue Authorities - The Additional Commissioner failed to account for the binding judgments of the Civil Court in the relevant case during a revision process. (Para 3, 4, 6)
(B) Legal Propositions - Settlement Authorities are bound to the decisions of the Civil Courts, regardless of whether judgments are contested or ex-parte. (Para 5)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner's request for land recording based on earlier Civil Court decrees was overlooked by the Additional Commissioner, leading to an unsustainable order.
Findings of Court:
Court determined the impugned order was invalid without consideration of binding judicial decisions.
Issues: Whether the Additional Commissioner's decision disregarded precedent established by the Civil Court's decree.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the mandatory requirement for Revenue Authorities to respect Civil Court determinations, rendering the impugned order invalid as critical evidence was omitted from consideration.
Result: Writ petition allowed, impugned order quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's request to quash prior order (Para 1) |
| 2. revenue authorities must respect civil court decisions (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. legal precedent on binding nature of civil judgments (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. writ petition allowed; prior order quashed (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 5. case remitted for fresh decision and directions (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
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 10.12.2024 (Annexure-6) passed in O.S.S. Case No.1031 of 2019 by the Additional Commissioner, Additional Revision Court No.II, Bhubaneswar under Member, Board of Revenue, Cuttack on the ground of non-taking the judgment and decree passed on dated 04.03.2006 and 20.03.2006 respectively in respect of the case land by the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Bhubaneswar in to account for passing the said impugned order vide Annexure-6.
2. Heard from the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned ASC for the State (Opposite Parties).
3. It appears from the impugned order dated 10.12.2024 (Annexure-6) that, during the course of hearing of the revision vide O.S.S. Case No.1031 of 2019 under Section 15 (b) of the O.S. & S. Act, 1958 before the Additional Commissioner, Additional Revision Court No.II, Bhubaneswar under Member, Board of Revenue, Cuttack, the Petitioner had filed the judgment and decree of the Civil Court passed in T.S. No.311 of 1988 in his favour in respect of the case land for recording the same in his name, but, the Additional Commissioner, Additional Revision Court No.II, Bhubaneswar under Member, Board of Revenue, Cuttack has not taken the said judgment and decree dated 04.03.2006 and 20.03.2006 respectively passed in T.S. No.311 of 1988 into account for passing such impugned order vide Annexure-6.
4. As per law, it is the duty of the Revenue Authorities to pass order for recording of the case land on the basis of the judgment and decree passed in the Civil Court. Because, the Settlement Authorities including the Commissioner under Section 15 (b) of the O.S. & S. Act, 1958 are bound to respect the decision of the Civil Court.
5. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:-
(i) In cases between Guru Charan Pattnaik and others Vrs. Joint Commissioner, Settlement and consolidation Cuttack reported in 2012 (I) OLR 463 that, Settlement Authorities are bound to respect the decision of the Civil Court.
(ii) In cases between Dr.Gati Krisna Misra Vrs. State of Orissa and others reported in 2002 (1) OLR 69 & Smt. Manjubala Pattanayak Vrs. State of Orissa and others reported in 2001 (1) OLR 530 that, the Settlement Authorities are to act according to the decision of the Civil Court, even though, the decree of the Civil Court is passed ex-parte unless and until that decree is set aside. Because, there is no difference between the judgment passed on contest or ex-parte.
(iii) In cases between Kunjabihari Pradhan Vrs. Jayanti Pradhan reported in 96 (2003) CLT 151 that, a judgment delivered by a Court between the Parties on relevant issue is binding on the Parties so long as that judgment and decree holds the filed. In that context, it is immaterial, whether that judgment was passed on contest or ex-parte.
6. When, in this matter at hand, the Additional Commissioner, Additional Revision Court No.II, Bhubaneswar under Member, Board of Revenue, Cuttack has passed the impugned order vide Annexure-6 against the Petitioner without taking the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court in T.S. No.311 of 1988 into account, then at this juncture, in view of the propositions of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, the impugned order vide Annexue-6 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Additional Revision Court No.II, Bhubaneswar under Member, Board of Revenue, Cuttack in O.S.S. Case No.1031 of 2019 cannot be sustainable under law
