The High Court's orders are binding on subordinate authorities, and failure to follow such orders constitutes a usurpation of judicial authority.

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 the order dated 22.11.2024 (Annexure-7) passed in mutation case No.4252 of 2024 by the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar and also to quash the application of the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.3) under Section 32 of the OSS Act, 1958 (Annexure 8) before the Board of Revenue, Cuttack and to direct the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (Opposite Party No.3) to issue R.o.R. of the case land in favour of the petitioner on the basis of the directions given by this Hon’ble Court on dated 11.04.2023 (Annexure 1) passed in the W.A. No.131 of 2023 filed by the petitioner.

2. I have already heard from the learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.

3. In the final order dated 11.04.2023 (Annexure-1) passed in W.A. No.131 of 2023, this Hon’ble Court has passed order in that Annexure-1 as follows:-

“Following the judgment in W.P.C. No.1608 of 2014 between Narottam Rath Vrs. State of Odisha, 2023 SCC Online, Orissa 153, Hon’ble Court set aside the impugned order dated 04.04.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition and directed that the appellant’s name will be entered in the R.o.R. as prayed for, while at the same time reserving the liberty of the Government to proceed in accordance with law under Section 3B of the OGLS Act”

4. On the basis of the above order/direction given by this Hon’ble Court in W.A. No.131 of 2023 as per Annexure1, the petitioner of that W.A. No.131 of 2023 i.e. Manjulata Jena approached Assistant Settlement Officer (O.P. No.2) for preparation of R.o.R. of the case land in her name and the ASO (O.P. No.2) registered such application of the petitioner as Misc. Case No.285 of 2023, but, as per order dated 10.11.2023 (Annexure 3) passed in that Misc. Case No.285 of 2023, he (O.P. No.2) requested Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (Opposite Party No.3) to generate R.o.R. of the case land in the name of the petitioner as per the directions/orders of the Hon’ble courts passed in W.A. No.131 of 2023 and issued a letter vide letter No.1615 dated 21.11.2023 (Annexure 2) to the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.3) indicating that, “due to the finalization of the settlement operation, R.o.R. and map of the concerned village covering the case land are in your custody, for which, you (Opposite Party No.3) are requested to make necessary correction in the R.o.R. and enter the same in Bhulekh.”

5. On the basis of such letter vide letter No.1615 dated 21.11.2023 (Annexure 2) of the ASO (O.P. No.2), the Opposite Party No.3 (Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar) initiated mutation case No.4252 of 2024 and that mutation case No.4252 of 2024 was sent to the file of Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar for its disposal.

6. As per final order dated 22.11.2024 (Annexure 7), the Additional Tahasildar rejected that mutation case No.4252 of 2024 in spite of the direction/order of the Hon’ble courts in W.A. No.131 of 2023 for recording the case land in the name of the petitioner assigning the reasons that:-

“Tahasildar is to carry out the order of the Superior Court with regard to entry in the R.o.R. However, in the instant case, the order for correction of the R.o.R. is not made by such Competent Superior Court to the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar. Hence, this lower Revenue Court is unable to honour the request of learned ASO, Rental Colony in view of the above statutory provisions enshrined in OSS Act. However for the interest of the justic