Revenue Authorities must comply with Civil Court decrees regarding land rights, which remain binding unless challenged or overturned.

JUDGMENT :

B.P. Routray, J

1. Heard Mr.A.Nayak, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Mr.S.P.Panda, learned AGA for the State.

2. The Tahasildar’s order dated 24^th May 2023 under Anneuxre-4 is impugned in present writ petition.

3. The facts of the case reveal that the Petitioners approached the Tahasildar for correction of the ROR in his name, in respect of the case land, pursuant to the order of the Joint Commissioner of Settlement and Consolidation, Board of Revenue, Odisha dated 26^th July 2017, and the decree passed by learned Munsif 1^st Court, Cuttack in T.S.No.21 of 1989.

The suit property appertains to Hal Plot No.247, Hal Khata No.3 measuring Ac.0.58 decimals of Mouza-Unit-36, Raja Bagicha. Initially the Petitioners approached the Joint Commissioner of Settlement under Section 15 (b) of the OSS Act and the Joint Commissioner in his order dated 26^th July 2017 has directed as follows:-

“Finally the revision case is allowed. The order passed in the Title Suit No.21 of 1989 binding upon both the parties. The Tahasildar, Cuttack Sadar is directed to correct the Hal ROR on the basis of the judgment passed by the learned Munsif, 1^st Court, Cuttack.”

4. It would be profitable here to say that learned Munsif in the judgment and decree dated 20^th October 1990 have declared indefeasible right of the Petitioner over the suit land i.e. present case land stated above. A further verification of the judgment of learned Munsif reveals that the decree of declaration was granted in favour of the Petitioners predecessor (plaintiff) on the ground of adverse possession. It needs to be mentioned here that declaration of title by way of adverse possession in respect of the deity is not permissible since the deity is considered as the perpetual minor in terms of the provisions of the Odisha Hindu Religious Endowment Act. However, in absence of challenge to that aspect of the decree of the Civil Court, this Court refrains from expressing any opinion on the legality and propriety of the decree dated 11^th January 1990. Since said decree of the Civil Court remains unchallenged till date despite the correspondence and intimation sent by the Tahasildar in his letter dated 10^th November 2020 and 29^th December 2022, as reflected in the impugned order, to Endowment Authorities, said decree of the Civil Court is found binding on all. In this regard, it is observed that the decree of the competent Civil Court is binding on the Revenue Authorities till the same is in force. Rule 35 of OSS Rules makes it clear that the Revenue Authority is bound to carry out the decree of the Civil Court, even without initiating a regular mutation proceeding. 5. Despite the direction of the Joint Commissioner to the Tahasildar to correct the ROR on the basis of the decree passed by the Civil Court, which undoubtedly is in force till date without being questioned by anyone including Endowment Authorities, no occasion is left on the part of the Tahasildar to held otherwise by sitting, as appellate authority, over the order of the Commissioner. This Court in Sanatan Acharya vs. Tahasildar, Panposh & Ors, 2016(2) OLR 290 have observed that of the OSS Rules provides that the Tahasildar is to carry out the order of the superior Court with regard to entry in the ROR and he has no authority to sit over the order of the higher Court. Also in the case of Prasanna Kumar Routray vs. Member Board of Revenue, Odisha & Ors., 2022 (2) CLR 1041 a similar observation has been made at Para-9 of the decision.

6. In the case at hand, as stated earlier, the decree passed in Title Suit No.21 of 1989 is never disputed or challenged and the same has attained finality without being challenged till date. The Petitioners had approached the Joint Commissioner of Settlement who directed the Tahasildar in the revision to correct the ROR in their favour based