Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
SASHIKANTA MISHRA
Pradipta Kishore Dash – Appellant
Versus
Additional Commissioner, BBSR – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.
The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayer:
It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue Rule Nisi, in the nature of writ of Certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ/writs, direction/directions and order/orders, calling upon the Opp.Parties, to show cause as to why the order dated 29.08.2013 passed by the O.P. No. 3 in Objection Case No. 5654 of 2013 vide VOS in Objection Case No. 5625 of 2013 under Annexure-11 & 11-A and the order dt. 17.12.2024 passed in RP Case No. 1694/2014 of the O.P. No.1 as under Annexure-13 respectively, thereby apparently confirming the recording the scheduled land in Govt. Khata vide Annexure-14 shall not be quashed with further direction to record the scheduled land in the name of the petitioner, in Sthitiban Status giving due regards to Govt. Circular vide Annexure-15, within a particular time;
And
If the Opp.Parties fails to show cause and/or show insufficient
and/or false cause, make the said rule Nisi absolute,
And/Or, pass any other order as deemed proper, And for this act of kindness, the petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray.”
2. The facts of the case,
The authority to hear revisions under the OSS Act rests with the Board of Revenue, not the Tahasildar, reaffirming the necessity for adherence to statutory provisions.
Authority under statutory law must act within defined limits; remitting issues back to lower authorities without jurisdiction is invalid.
The Tahasildar cannot exceed jurisdiction by disregarding multiple prior judicial mandates in mutation proceedings, reflecting improper legal interpretation.
The Tahasildar must follow judicial directives in land mutation cases and cannot independently revisit settled matters, ensuring adherence to established legal procedures.
The court ruled that administrative decisions affecting rights must provide specific grounds and ensure the affected parties have a right to a fair hearing.
Settlement authorities cannot override confirmed property rights without lawful authority; Judicial review ensures adherence to due process in land ownership disputes.
The court reaffirmed that failing to provide proper notice to affected parties violates principles of natural justice, rendering administrative orders void.
An order made without jurisdiction is null and void, reinforcing the established property rights in land ownership disputes under the Odisha Survey and Settlement Act, 1958.
An order made without jurisdiction is void and cannot be sustained; ownership rights established must be recognized despite conflicting authority actions.
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
