The Board of Revenue can recall an order if it determines that jurisdictional requirements were not met, emphasizing the need for proper documentation to support tenancy claims under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act.

ORDER :

1. This writ petition challenges an order dated 3^rd August, 2009 passed by the Board of Revenue (BoR) in OEA Misc. Case No.13 of 2007 arising out of OEA RC No.56 of 2003. By the said order, the Member, BoR allowed the above application of the State of Orissa and recalled an earlier order dated 28^th March 2005, which had been passed by the Member, BoR allowing the original Petitioner’s OEA RC No.56 of 2003.

2. Initially in the present writ petition, this Court passed an order on 30^th June 2010, where in the operative portion, it was said “now by the impugned order, the order dated 28^th March, 2005 has been recalled. So there is no cause of action of the Petitioner to file this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. The interim order dated 10^th September, 2009 stands vacated.”

3. Aggrieved by the above order, the Petitioner filed a Special Leave Petition (Civil) [SLP (C)] No.21175 of 2010 in the Supreme Court of India. That SLP came to be disposed of by the Supreme Court on 10^th January, 2018 by the following order:

“We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner had challenged an order dated 3^rd August, 2009 passed by the Member, Board of Revenue in OEA Misc. Case No.13 of 2007. By that order, the Member, Board of Revenue recalled his earlier order dated 28^th March, 2005.

The High Court took the view that since the order dated 28^th March, 2005 has been recalled, there is no cause of action in favour of the petitioner to pursue the writ petition.

In our opinion, the High Court was in error in coming to this conclusion. The High Court ought to have considered whether the Member, Board of Revenue had the power and jurisdiction to recall the order and, if so, the effect of the decision.

Under the circumstances, we set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 30^th June, 2010 passed by the High Court in WP No.11784 of 2009 and remand the matter to the High Court for consideration of the writ petition filed by the petitioner on merits.

The special leave petition stands disposed of.”

4. Consequent upon the above order, the Petitioner filed I.A. No.13129 of 2020 in this petition. In an order dated 20^th April 2021, this Court listed out the questions that were required to be answered by learned counsel for the Petitioner, (I) Whether the claim of the Petitioner late Ramachandra Sahoo that he was granted Ekpadia by the Former King of Kanika State on 31^st March 1949, which never saw the light of day before 2^nd May 2003, should have been relied upon by the learned Member Board of Revenue in purported exercise of revisional jurisdiction? It was observed “his direction to record the name of the Petitioner in an apparent and the de facto abuse of an original jurisdiction.” Learned counsel was also asked to apprise the Court (II) “about the proposition of law that any Court, quasi-Judicial Authority, Revenue Authority has jurisdiction to recall any of its own order, which is later found to be without jurisdiction?”

5. On the next date i.e. 22^nd June 2021, an adjournment was sought on behalf of the Petitioners, which was granted at the cost of Rs.5000/- since the request was not found to be reasonable. On 21^st March 2022, the present counsel stated that she would file Vakalatnama on behalf of the Petitioners and sought an ad