Back
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA
Pradip Mohanty – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.
1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of the India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing (setting aside) an order dated 22.03.2022 (Annexure 1) passed in Appeal Case No.310 of 2016 by the Additional Sub Collector, Bhubaneswar (Opposite Party No.3) and to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Assistant Settlement Officer (O.P. No.4) to record the case land i.e. A0.102 decimals of Sabik Plot No.51/1442 under Sabik Khata No.233/142 in Mouja Sampur jointly in the name of the petitioner along with his brother and sister and to grant other reliefs in his favour, to which, he (petitioner) is entitled under law.
2. The case of the petitioner is that, one Priyambada Mohanty W/o-Bhava Krushna Mohanty of Udyan Marg Bhubaneswar under Capital Police Station in the district of Puri (at present in the District of Khordha) was the owner of the property vide Sabik Plot No.51/1442, A2.00 Decimals under Sabik Khata No.233/142 in Mouja Sampur under Chandaka Police Station in the District of Puri (at present in the District of Khordha).
3. The said A2.00 Decimals of land of Sabik Plot No.51/1442 under Sabik Khata No.
Settlement authorities lack jurisdiction to declare a sale deed void; unchallenged orders remain valid until modified by a competent authority.
The court confirmed that established land settlements must be respected and that authorities cannot alter classifications of land previously settled without valid justification under law.
The court emphasized the importance of providing an opportunity to be heard in settlement processes and upheld the validity of the documents presented by the petitioners.
Settlement authorities' orders do not confer or extinguish title to property; parties retain the right to establish ownership through legal proceedings.
Settlement authorities cannot alter confirmed land assignments without legal basis, emphasizing the need to respect prior land grants and judicial confirmations.
An order made without jurisdiction is null and void, reinforcing the established property rights in land ownership disputes under the Odisha Survey and Settlement Act, 1958.
A writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 is maintainable when statutory authorities act without jurisdiction, allowing for correction of records even after finalization.
Orders made by statutory authorities lacking jurisdiction can be challenged in writ petitions, especially when valid leases are ignored, affirming the court's authority to rectify such errors.
Settlement authorities cannot override confirmed property rights without lawful authority; Judicial review ensures adherence to due process in land ownership disputes.
An order made without jurisdiction is void and cannot be sustained; ownership rights established must be recognized despite conflicting authority actions.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
