Revenue authorities are mandated to respect the decrees of civil courts, as outlined in Rule 34 of the OSS Rules, acknowledging existing rights instead of incorrectly requiring settlement of land.

JUDGMENT :

K.R.MOHAPATRA, J.

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. As per endorsement of learned Deputy Registrar (Judicial) dated 25^th January, 2023, the matter has been placed before this Bench.

3. Order dated 26^th November, 2021 (Annexure-4) passed by learned Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack in OSSR Case No.862 of 2018 is under challenge in this writ petition, whereby revision filed by the Petitioners under Section 32 of the Odisha Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 (for short, ‘Settlement Act’), has been dismissed.

4. Ms. Naidu, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the land in question was recorded in the name of the government ROR published in the year 1983. As such, father of the Petitioners, namely, Siddhartha Deb filed T.S No.2 of 1992 for declaration of his right, title and interest over the said property, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 7^th May, 1993 by learned Sub-ordinate Judge, Deogarh. Assailing the same, Title Appeal No.34/7 of 1993-95 was filed, which was allowed vide judgment dated 22^nd January, 1996 with the following order.

“4. In the result, I find merit in the appeal which succeeds and is allowed on contest. The plaintiff’s right in and tile to the suit lands are hereby declared. Since the defendant is Government of Orisssa, there is no order as to costs.”

Father of the Petitioners could not take any step to mutate the land in their name pursuant to the decree passed in their favour. However, the Petitioners after death of their father, filed Mutation Case No.77 of 2018 to mutate the land in their name. The said mutation case was dismissed vide order dated 10^th April, 2018. Assailing the same, the Petitioners preferred Mutation Appeal No.9 of 2018, which was also dismissed vide order dated 9^th August, 2018 by the Sub-Collector, Deogarh. Assailing the same, the Petitioners preferred OSSR Case No.862 of 2018, which was dismissed vide the impugned order under Annexure-4. Hence, this writ petition has been filed.

4.1 Ms. Naidu, learned counsel for the Petitioners further submits that learned Member Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack proceeded on a misconception that the authorities are required to settle the land in favour of the Petitioners. In the instant case, question of settlement of the land does not arise, asright, title and interest of the Petitioners has already been declared by the Civil Court. Revenue authorities are only obliged to carry out the order passed by the Civil Court. Provision under Rule 34 of the OSS Rules, 1962 (for short ‘Rules’) makes it clear that the revenue authorities are obliged to carry out the order passed by the Civil Court. Thus, the impugned order under Annexure-4 is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside and the land in question is directed to be recorded in the name of the Petitioners.

5. When the matter was taken up on 5^th July, 2023, Mr. Mishra, learned ASC raised preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the mutation proceeding, submitting that when the decree is no more available to be executed after lapse of more than twenty eight years, the revenue authorities are not obliged to carry out the same. Accordingly, the matter stood adjourned. To today, Mr. Mishra, learned ASC submits that since the declaration of right, title and interest is a judgment in rem, the revenue authorities are obliged to respect the same in view of Rule 34 of the Rules. He, however, submits that the revenue authorities did not consider the matter in that light. Thus, the matter may require fresh consideration.

6. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the case record, it appears that revenue authorities proceeded on a misc