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.

JUDGMENT :

SAVITRI RATHO, J.

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. The Petitioner in this writ petition seeks to assail the order dated 29^th July, 2013 (Annexure-5) passed by the Additional Sub-Collector-cum-Settlement Officer, Bhubaneswar in Appeal Case No.725 of 2013. The Petitioner also seeks for a direction to settle the land, she has purchased in her name and to correct the Record of Right (RoR) accordingly.

3. Mr. Samantaray, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that initially, Plot No.583/1651 to an extent of Ac.1.000 decimals of Khata No.325/1034 in Mouza Pathargadia under Bhubaneswar Tahasil in the district of Khurda (erstwhile district of Puri) was leased out in the name of one Pitabasa Behera by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar vide order dated 11^th October, 1974 passed in W.L. Lease Case No.1645 of 1974. Accordingly, RoR was issued in favour of the lessee stipulating therein that the land could not be transferred within a period of five years from the date of lease. Pitabasa Behera, after a lapse of 18 years, alienated different parcels of land to different persons through his registered Power of Attorney for legal necessity. The Power of Attorney sold an area of Ac.0.100 decimals out of the leasehold property to the Petitioner vide Registered Sale Deed No.769 dated 23^rd March, 1993 and delivered possession to her. The Petitioner also got the land mutated in her name in Mutation Case No.3166 of 1995. The RoR was also corrected accordingly in her name in respect of bifurcated Plot No.583/1651/2724 under Khata No.325/1034 situated in Pathargadia Mouza under Bhubaneswar Tahasil in the district of Khurda (for brevity ‘the case land’). The Petitioner, thus, continued to enjoy the case land exercising her right, title and interest thereon on payment of land revenue. After a lapse of twenty-four years from the date of the lease, the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar initiated suo motu Revision Case No.841 of 1998 against the original lessee, namely, Pitabasa Behera and cancelled the lease granted in his name vide order dated 28^th July, 1998. Although the case land was recorded in the name of the Petitioner by that time, but neither the Petitioner nor any other purchaser was made party to the Revision Case. Thus, they had no occasion to know about cancellation of the lease in favour of the lessee in the Revision Case. When they came to know about the aforesaid order of cancellation of lease granted in favour of the lessee, the Petitioner along with three other transferees, namely, Smt. Simple Sujata Mishra, Sri Chandrasekhar Deo and Smt. Snehalata Das preferred W.P.(C) No.4824 of 2023 before this Court. This Court vide order dated 20^th November, 2003, set aside the order dated 28^th July, 1998 and remitted the matter to the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar for fresh adjudication of the revision. Accordingly, the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar entertained the suo motu Revision Case No.841 of 1998 afresh and dropped the same vide order dated 21^st June, 2006 holding that the subsequent transfer of land by the lessee to the purchasers including the Petitioner was established as per the documents and evidence available in the case record. Thus, the Petitioner became the absolute owner in possession over the case land.

3.1 It is further submitted by Mr. Samantaray, learned counsel that the Petitioner is still in possession over the case land by exercising her right, title and interest thereof. When the matter stood thus, settlement operation started in the locality. The Asst. Settlement Officer without verifying the record, directed to settle the leasehold property including the case land in Government Khata under ‘Abada Jogya Anabadi’ status. Being aggrie