Back
ORISSA HIGH COURT
BIBHUTI BHUSAN RAY – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF ODISHA – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.
1. 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
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 High Court's orders are binding on subordinate authorities, and failure to follow such orders constitutes a usurpation of judicial authority.
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 resumption of land under Section 3-B cannot be solely based on observations of land lying fallow; substantial evidence of actual non-use for its intended purpose is required.
Authorities must maintain consistency with prior unchallenged decisions, as deviation without justification undermines legal fairness and jurisdiction.
Burden of proof - Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist.
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
