Dismissal of land conversion application deemed unsustainable due to contradictions with prior court findings.

JUDGMENT :

A.C. Behera, J. -

This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for setting aside the order of dismissal of the OLR Case No.2001 of 2022 (arising out of W.P.(C) No.31109 of 2024) under Section 8A of the OLR Act passed on dated 25.03.2025 under Annexure-11 by the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (Opposite Party No.5).

2. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Opposite Parties.

3. It appears from the impugned order dated 25.03.2025 passed in OLR Case No.2001 of 2022 under Annexure-11 by the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar(Opposite Party No.5) that, the said OLR Case No.2001 of 2022 under Section 8A of the OLR Act was initiated as per the order of this Court passed in W.P.(C) No.31109 of 2024 for conversion of land of the petitioner vide Khata No,.474/4656, Plot No.299/1823/2663 Ac.0.060 decimals and Plot No.299/1823/2664/4974 Ac.0.020 decimals in total Ac.0.080 decimals in Mouza-Patia, Thana No.22 in the district of Khurda under Bhubaneswar Tahasil from Baje Phasala-2 to Gharabari Kissam, but, the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar(Opposite Party No.5) dismissed to the said OLR Case No.2001 of 2022(arising out of W.P.(C) No.31109 of 2024) as per final order dated 25.03.2025 under Annexure-11 assigning following two reasons/grounds, i.e.:-

(i) The possession of the land could not be ascertained as per the report of the Revenue Inspector, Kalarahanga, and

(ii) The said land is not permissible for conversion pursuant to Letter No.40205 dated 05.09.2012 and Letter No.37160 dated 27.09.2013 of Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Government of Odisha.

4. The petitioner has challenged the said order of dismissal to his OLR Case No.2001 of 2022 arising out of W.P.(C) No.31109 of 2024 passed on dated 10.01.2025 under Annexure-11 by the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar(Opposite Party No.5) by filing this writ petition.

5. Now, it is to be seen, whether, the above two reasons/grounds assigned by the Opposite Party No.5 in the impugned order indicated above for the dismissal of the OLR Case No.2001 of 2022 under Section 8A of the OLR Act of the petitioner are sustainable/acceptable under law.

6. So far as the 1^st reason assigned by the Opposite Party No.5 in the impugned order vide Annexure-11 that, the possession of the land could not be ascertained as per the report of the Revenue Inspector, Kalarahanga is concerned, It is very fundamental in law as per Rule-32 of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Rules, 1962 that, all the revenue records in the village/mouza shall be maintained and kept up-to-date in the office of the local Tahasildar in accordance with the rules thereof.

7. When, undisputed RoR of the land (in respect of which, the petitioner has prayed for conversion) vide Khata No.474/4656 stands in the name of the petitioner and when the Tahasildar(Opposite Party No.4) has been accepting rents for the same regularly in each and every year from the petitioner through Revenue Inspector, Kalarahanga and when the plots under that Khata No.474/4656 in Mouza-Patia under Thana No.22 are distinct and separate full plots, whose separate identities/locations have been shown in the village Map available in the office of the Tahasildar including Opposite Party No.5 as well as in the office of the R.I., Kalarahanga and when the said RoR as well as village Map are available under the public domain in the Bhulekh Website of Bhubaneswar Tahasil and when, the Opposite Party No.5 is the custodian of all the revenue documents including Maps and RoRs in respect of all the properties under his territorial jurisdiction including the above two plots of the petitioner, then at this juncture, the Opposite Party No.5 had no authority or jurisdiction under law to express in the impugned order that, the possession of the land could not be ascertained as per the report of the Revenue Inspector, K