IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.16778 of 2025 (An application under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950)

Pranita Kumari Suar …. Petitioner -versus-

Additional Commissioner, …. Opposite Parties Settlement and Consolidation, Berhampur and others Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode):

For Petitioner - Mr.D.K.Behera, Advocate For Opposite Parties- Mr.G.Mohanty, SC CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA Date of Hearing :12.12.2025 :: Date of Judgment :12.12.2025 A.C. Behera, J. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the Petitioner praying for quashing the part dismissal of S.R.P. No.1313 of 2016 of the Petitioner on dated 25.10.2024 (Annexure-4) by the Additional Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Berhampur (O.P. No.1) in respect of Hal Plot No.941 corresponding to Sabik Plot No.144/3 as per the order dated

25.10.2024 (Annexure-4) only stating about the mismatch between Hal and Sabik Plot of the same.

2. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Standing counsel for the State.

3. In order to ascertain the correspondences/matching of Sabik and Hal Plot number, it is the duty of the Commissioner either to call for a report from the Settlement Authorities or to call for a report from the concerned Tahasildar and without calling for any report from the Settlement Authorities or the Tahasildar, the Commissioner cannot express about the mismatching of Sabik and Hal Correspondances of the case land. Because, the observations regarding mismatching between Hal and Sabik Plot should is to be based upon the report of the Settlement Authorities or Tahasildar.

On this aspect, it has been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:-

(i) In a case between Bijaya Chatterjee Vrs. Commissioner, Land Record and Settlement and others reported in 2000 (II)

OLR 349 that, the commissioner at the time of hearing of the revision under Section 15(b) of the OSS Act, 1958 can call for the report from the Tahasildar regarding the matching of the Hal Plot number with Sabik Plot number.

(ii) In a case between Brundaban Patnaik Vrs.

Commissioner, Land Record and Settlement and others reported in 2001 (1) OLR 53 that, commissioner can direct the Tahasildar to cause field enquiry and correct the map, if necessary.

4. Here, in this matter at hand, when, the Additional Commissioner (O.P. No.1) has rejected the claim of the Petitioner for recording of the case land in respect of Hal Plot No.941 stating about the mismatch of the same with Sabik Plot indicated in the sale deed without any report about the same either from the Settlement Authorities or from the Tahasildar, then at this juncture, it is held that, the above observations made by the O.P. No.1 in the impugned order regarding mismatch of Hal Plot number of the case with Sabik Plot number is held as baseless.

5. When, it is held that, the impugned order dated 25.10.2024 (Annexure-4) passed by the O.P. No.1 in S.R.P. No.1313 of 2016 as baseless, then at this juncture, there is justification under law for making interference with the said order dated 25.10.2024 (Annexure-4) passed in S.R.P. No.1313 of 2016 through this writ petition filed by the Petitioner.

As such, there is merit in the writ petition filed by the Petitioner.

The same is to be allowed.

6. In result, the writ petition filed by the Petitioner is allowed.

7. The impugned order of rejection to the prayer of the Petitioner in respect of the Hal Plot No.941 in Mouza Lathi passed on dated 25.10.2024 (Annexure-4) in S.R.P. No.1313 of 2016 by the Additional Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Berhampur (O.P. No.1) is quashed.

8. The matter vide S.R.P. No.1313 of 2016 is remitted back to the Additional Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Berhampur (O.P. No.1) for deciding the same afresh as per law after giving opportunity of being heard to all the Parties thereof including the P