SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Ori) 997

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
K.R.MOHAPATRA, J.
Jagannath Sahu, S/o late Biswanath Sahu - Petitioners
Versus
State of Odisha, represented through its Secretary Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Secretariat Building, AT/PO/PS: Bhubaneswar Proforma - Opp. Party
W.P.(C) NO.15355 OF 2024
Decided On : 02-05-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr.Goutam Mukherji, Senior Advocate being assisted by Mr.Supratik Acharya, Advocate
For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Swayambhu Mishra, Additional Standing Counsel

Land recorded as 'Dakhal Satwa Sunya' must be corrected to 'Stithiban' according to government guidelines under the Odisha Tenancy Act, ensuring compliance with statutory duties.

Headnote:(A) Odisha Tenancy Act, 1913 - Sections 4 and 24 - Challenge to the status of land recorded as 'Dakhal Satwa Sunya' - Petitioners claim that land should be recorded as 'Stithiban' in accordance with government guidelines for undivided districts - Guidelines state that such lands should be correctly recorded as 'Stithiban' - Tahasildar's inaction is a violation of duty to act on instructions. (Paras 3.1, 4, 10, 14)

(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Nature of review - Writ courts provide a remedy when there is inaction on part of authorities in fulfilling statutory duties - The court must ensure compliance with guidelines governing the status of land. (Paras 6, 14)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners are legal heirs of Sarojini Sahu who held the land recorded as 'Dakhal Satwa Sunya'. The government had issued guidelines for changing such records to 'Stithiban' status, but the Tahasildar failed to act upon this. (Paras 2, 3, 4, 10)

Findings of Court:
The court finds that there is clear instruction to change the status of the land and the Tahasildar must rectify the record to reflect the 'Stithiban' status immediately. (Para 14)

Issues: Whether the land can be recorded under 'Stithiban' status in light of the government guidelines and the statutory framework. (Paras 9, 10)

Ratio Decidendi: The status of the case land must be corrected to 'Stithiban' based on clear directives from the government and collaborative reading of the Odisha Tenancy Act guiding such changes. (Paras 10, 14)

Result: The writ petition is allowed and the Tahasildar is directed to change the record expeditiously.

Table of Content
1. challenge to land status change process. (Para 2 , 3)
2. petitioners' claim regarding raiyati rights. (Para 4)
3. tahasilar's defense on land status. (Para 5)
4. court's assessment of claims. (Para 7 , 8)
5. misinterpretation of land recording guidelines. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
6. court's directive on land status correction. (Para 14 , 15)

JUDGMENT :

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Inaction of Opposite Parties-functionaries of the State in changing status of the land mentioned in the Record of Right (ROR) from ‘Dakhal Satwa Sunya’ to ‘Stithiban’ is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.

3. Case of the Petitioners in brief relevant for adjudication is that Plot No.1313 to an extent of Ac.2.385 decimal under Khata No.343/137 situated in mouza Jagannath Prasad under Bhubaneswar Tahasil in the district of Khordha (for brevity ‘the case land’) stands recorded in the name of one Sarojini Sahu (mother of Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and proforma Opposite Party Location: No.5). The Kisam of the case land is recorded as ‘Gharabari’. In Column No.3 of ROR, the status of the case land has been described as ‘Dakhal Satwa Sunya’. Petitioner Nos.1 to 5 are the successors of the recorded tenant, namely, late Sarojini Sahu. It is pertinent to mention here that late Biswanath Sahu and his wife Sarojini Sahu had three sons, namely, Jagannath, Lingaraj and Lokanath and one daughter, namely, Sujata. Sujata Sahu has been added as proforma Opposite Party No.5 to the writ petition. Lingaraj Sahu is dead leaving behind Petitioner Nos.3 to 5 as his legal heirs. During his life time, the recorded tenant, namely, Sarojini Sahu had executed a Power of Attorney-cum- Development Agreement (Annexure-2) in favour of the Developer, namely, Petitioner No.6-M.J. Developers for development of the case land. The recorded tenant died on 21st November, 2020 leaving behind his legal heirs as stated above.

3.1 Government in Revenue and Disaster Management Department issued letter RDM-CHS-PGOT-0303-2020/L No.3063/R and DM dated 28th January, 2021 (Annexure-6) to all Collectors of the State instructing them to initiate suo motu cases and correct the status of the case land to ‘Stithiban’ wherever the status of land is recorded as ‘Bajyapti Stithiban’, ‘Dakhal Satwa Bisista’ and ‘Dakhal Satwa Sunya’. In the said letter, it is observed that the Department vide letter No.47582 dated 12th October, 1990 had issued a set of instructions titled as ‘Raiyati Jami Record Kariba Pranali O Satwaa Satwa Niyamabali’ (for short, ‘Guidelines’) to regulate recording of the Raiyati land. In para-23 of the said instruction/Guidelines, it is indicated that in course of settlement operation in the undivided districts of Puri, Cuttack and Location: Balasore, the land recorded in the status of ‘Bajyapti Stithiban’, ‘Dakhal Satwa Bisista’ and ‘Dakhal Satwa Sunya’ would be recorded under ‘Stithiban’ status. In the rest part of the State of Odisha if entry of the status of land in the RoR is noticed as above, the same would be recorded under ‘Raiyati’ status. Thus, the Petitioners claim the land being situated in the undivided district of Puri (now in the district of Khordha), the ROR should have been prepared describing the status of the case land as ‘Stithiban’. In the said letter under Annexure-6, it has been instructed that Tahasildar should initiate suo motu cases to change the status of the land to ‘Stithiban’. The Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar-Opposite Party No.2 failed to act upon the instruction issued as above to change the status of the case land to ‘Stithiban’. Petitioners also intimated the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar-Opposite Party No.2, vide grievance petition dated 15th November, 2023 under Annexure-7, to change the status of the case land to ‘Stithiban’. But the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar failed to act upon the same. Hence, the Petitioners finding no other alternative have filed the present writ petition.

4. Mr. Mukherji, learned Senior Advocate ap

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top