The authority under the Odisha Survey and Settlement Act can correct record of rights for errors without needing external permissions, affirming its broad jurisdiction to rectify mistakes made by settlement authorities.

JUDGMENT :

B.P. ROUTRAY, J.

1. Heard Mr.Kanungo, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners and Mr.Mohapatra, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.5 as well as Mr.Das, learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties.

2. Mr.Das, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State submits that Opposite Party No.3 has filed his counter today through e-filing.

3. The Petitioners in this writ petition have prayed for quashing of order dated 9^th February 2024 (Annexure-2) passed by the Additional Commissioner, Bhubaneswar in OSS Case No.826/ 2023.

4. The Petitioners are Real Estate Developers who have been allowed to develop the land on PPP Mode. Bhubaneswar Development Authority, who allotted the land for development to the present Petitioners, preferred the revision case before the Additional Commissioner impleading Petitioner No.1 as Opposite Party No.5. The entire dispute is regarding recording of the land in Hal Plot No.97 extending Ac.1.016 dec corresponding to Sabik Plot No.87/1264 in Government Rakhit Khata No.2075 having Kisam Jungle.

5. The admitted fact remains that in the Sabik ROR, it was recorded as Puratana Patita and while preparing the hal records, such extent of the land measuring Ac.1.016 dec. has been recorded in Jungle Kisam.

6. The learned Commissioner in the impugned order under Annexure- 2 has though agreed that RoR of the land in question has been prepared wrongly with an apparent error committed by the Settlement Authority during last settlement operation shifting southern boundary line of Hal Plot No.97, thereby mismatching the Hal-Sabik comparison of maps. Despite holding so, the Commissioner has denied to correct the Kisam of the land holding that even if for wrong recording of the land in Jungle Kisam, prior approval of Government of India in the Ministry of Environment and Forest is mandatory and therefore, refused to correct the Kisam.

7. Perusal of the hal ROR under Annexure-1 admittedly reveals recording of the Kisam as Jungle in respect of Plot No.97. The real dispute involved here is that, the land in question was never in Jungle Kisam, but by wrong shifting of boundary line of the plot in the map, some Jungle, but Kisam lands were included. It is submitted on behalf of the Petitioners and Opposite Party No.6 that, if the boundary line in the map would be corrected, all those Jungle Kisam lands will be excluded. It is seen from the counter filed by Opposite Party No.7, i.e. The Forest Department, they have admitted regarding mismatch in the preparation of boundary line in the Hal map of Plot No.97. Paragraph 5 and 6 of their counter are reproduced below:

“5. That the deponent respectfully submits that Sabik Plot No.87/1264 & No.87/1263 of Village-Sankarpur, P.S-Chandaka recorded in Sabik Khata No.421 corresponds to series of Hal plot with Gocher classification recorded in Hal Khata No.2075 (Rakhit Khata). But on super imposition of Hal & Sabik map, it reveals that Sabik Plot No.87/1264 with an area of Ac.7.990 corresponds to several Hal plots including plot No.97(P) with an area of Ac.1.016 classified as Jungle, recorded in “Jungle Bibhag” Khata No.2076. But Hal plot No.97(P) as per Hal map does not tally with the Hal Sabik & Sabik Hal plot index co-relation. So, as it appears there is a mis-match in preparation of boundary line of Hal plot No.97, Hal Khata No.2076 which corresponds to Sabik plot No.87 (P) of Mouza-Sankarpur.

6. That on verification in the field, it is seen that the Forest Deptt. is not in possession over the schedule area of Ac.1.016 of plot No.97(p) having no forest growth. The Settlement Officer, Major Settlement, Cuttack is the competent authority to offer his views in the matter of change of boundary line in