The Tahasildar must follow judicial directives in land mutation cases and cannot independently revisit settled matters, ensuring adherence to established legal procedures.

JUDGMENT :

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

The petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 11.04.2025 passed by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar in Mutation Case No.29182 of 2022, whereby the prayer of the petitioner to record the land in question in his favour was disallowed.

2. Before adverting to the facts of the case, it would be apt to mention that this is the seventh approach of the petitioner to this Court seeking more or less the same relief. That a citizen of this country has had to repeatedly knock the doors of this Court is by itself a matter of concern.

3. The land in question was settled in favour of one Bhaskar Sethi as a lessee under the provisions of ORISSA GOVERNMENT LAND SETTLEMENT ACT , 1962 (OGLS Act). The lessee, after obtaining permission from the competent authority under Section 22 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 (OLR Act) and the Bhubaneswar Development Authority (BDA), sold the case land to the petitioner vide RSD No.1466/1985 dated 01.03.1950. The land was however, resumed in the year 2002 by invoking power under Section 3(B) of the OGLS Act but without serving any notice on the petitioner. The petitioner having approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.19386 of 2009, a Division Bench, by order dated 29.07.2011 set aside the order of resumption in respect of the case land. The petitioner filed Misc. Case No.80 of 2012 before the Tahasildar for correction of Hal-ROR but as no action was taken for years together, he approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.8307 of 2014. By order dated 25.06.2014, this Court directed the Tahasildar to dispose of the case within four months. While the matter stood thus, settlement operation commenced in the area in question. Despite requests by the petitioner, the settlement authorities recorded the land in the name of Government as Abada Jogya Anabadi. The petitioner filed a revision under Section 15 (b) of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, before the Board of Revenue. By order dated 29.07.2022, the Additional Commissioner, Additional Revision Court under Member, Board of Revenue disposed of the case by directing the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar to record the land in favour of the petitioner after verifying all original/relevant documents and conducting a field enquiry.

4. The petitioner filed the aforementioned mutation case, which not being disposed of for long, he approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.27417 of 2023. This Court, by order dated 30.08.2023 directed the Tahasildar to dispose of the case within two months. The petitioner had to file contempt application before this Court in view of non- compliance. Ultimately, the mutation case was heard and disposed of by disallowing the claim of the petitioner by the impugned order.

5. The State did not file any counter, though, the State counsel preferred to make oral submissions. Notice on the private Opposite Parties was duly served but there was no appearance from their side.

6. Heard Ms. Sradha Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.R. Dash, Additional Government Advocate for the State.

7. Ms. Das assails the impugned order by submitting that the Tahasildar exceeded his jurisdiction in invoking power under the provisions of OGLS Act while considering the mutation proceeding under OSS Act. She further submits that even otherwise, once a Division Bench of this Court has set aside the order of resumption under Section 3(b) of the OGLS Act, it is no longer open to the Tahasildar to reopen the issue unilaterally. Further, the order of the Tahasildar also runs contrary to the order passed by the revisional Court under Section 15 (b) of the OSS Act.

8. Mr. Dash, learned Additional Government Advocate fairly submits