Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
B.P.ROUTRAY
Bilasini Gochhayat @ Bilasi Dei – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. impermissibility of ignoring higher authority's direction. (Para 2 , 4 , 6) |
| 2. recognition of indefeasible rights by decree. (Para 3) |
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr.A.Nayak, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Mr.S.P.Panda, learned AGA for the State.
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 26th July 2017, and the decree passed by learned Munsif 1st Court, Cuttack in T.S.No.21 of 1989.
“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, 1st Court, Cuttack.”
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 R
Revenue Authorities must comply with Civil Court decrees regarding land rights, which remain binding unless challenged or overturned.
The Tahasildar must comply with the Civil Court decree and cannot arbitrarily reject mutation applications based on such decrees; compliance with the Odisha Survey and Settlement Rules is mandatory.
The High Court's orders are binding on subordinate authorities, and failure to follow such orders constitutes a usurpation of judicial authority.
A Tahasildar is not required to consult the Collector for correcting the R.o.R as per law, and higher authorities may not set aside such orders without valid reasons.
The main legal point established is the limitation of the Tahasildar's power in correcting the R.O.R. and map, and the Commissioner's authority to delegate jurisdiction, as well as the need for a lib....
Injunction suits are maintainable where the plaintiff is in lawful possession, even amidst title disputes, unless the defendant can demonstrate a valid claim to title.
The Tahasildar must follow judicial directives in land mutation cases and cannot independently revisit settled matters, ensuring adherence to established legal procedures.
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
