An order correcting the Record of Rights is unsustainable if made beyond the limitation period without appropriate condonation or credible allegations of fraud being substantiated.

JUDGMENT :

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

1. Both these writ applications are directed against the same order and being heard together are disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The property in dispute relates to Sabik settlement Khata No. 56, Plot No.80, measuring Ac.0.120 decimals in the erstwhile Mouza- Sana Jobra in the district of Cuttack. The property stands recorded in the Hal ROR published on 04.01.1974 under Hal Khata No.18 in favour of the petitioners.

3. The facts of the case are that the Collector, Cuttack, filed an application under Section 15(b) of the OSS Act, 1958 in the Court of Joint Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Board of Revenue, Cuttack registered as RP No.483 of 2016 for correction of the Hal ROR in favour of the State by deleting the names of the recorded tenants (present petitioners). It is the case of the Collector that during settlement operation at Khanapuri stage, one Ganesh Chandra Jena produced a registered sale deed bearing No. 3177 dated 13.07.1984 executed in favour of one Narayan Jena. Said Narayan Jena also produced a chirasthai patta in respect of Sabik Plot No.80 under Sabik Khata No.56. The settlement authority, without application of judicial mind and examining the authenticity of the documents, passed order to settle the land corresponding to Hal Plot No.132 in the name of Narayan Jena with sthitiban status. Hal ROR was finally published on 04.01.1974. It is stated that Sabik Khata No. 56, Sabik Plot No.80, originally stood recorded in the name of Government of Odisha in Anabadi Khata. Therefore, the subsequent recording of the land in favour of Narayan Jena and others conveyed no title in their favour. It was stated that during demarcation of the proposed road from Mahanadi Ring Road to the Cancer Institute, the above fact came to the notice of the State.

3.1. An application for condonation of delay was filed. The petitioners submitted their show-cause reply citing the flow of title in their favour and resisting the application on the ground of delay. Learned Joint Commissioner, by order dated 20.09.2017, allowed the revision by holding that the disputed property stood recorded in the name of the Government and that the opposite parties have taken help of fraudulent methods to record the land in respect of its corresponding Hal plots. Since the land originally stood recorded in the name of the Government, subsequent recording in the names of the petitioners confers no title on them. The revision was allowed by directing the correction of the ROR as per Sabik and to record the plots in the name of Government by deleting the names of the present petitioner from the Hal ROR and remarks column of the plots. The petitioners have filed this writ application impugning the said order.

Challenge of the petitioners to the impugned order is firstly on the ground of limitation. It is stated that the Hal ROR having been published in the year 1987, the application under Section 15(1)(b) was filed in the year 2016 i.e, after a delay of more than 29 years. The inordinate delay was not explained at all. That apart, though the revision was to be heard on the question of limitation at the outset, learned Joint Commissioner did not hear the parties on such question and went on to pass the impugned order holding that the case was admitted and the delay had been condoned. In the absence of a specific order condoning the delay, the impugned order becomes nullity in the eye of law. It is the further case of the petitioners that the revision petition was filed alleging that the settlement authority without application of judicial mind and examining the authenticity of documents, directed settlement of land. Not a word alleging fr