ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK

WP(C) No.14615 of 2025

An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of

India. ***

Manoranjan Das

… Petitioner.

-VERSUS-

State of Odisha & Others

… Opposite Parties

Counsel appeared for the parties:

For the Petitioner : Mr. K.M. Mishra, Advocate

For the Opposite Parties : Ms. J. Sahoo, Addl. Standing Counsel.

P R E S E N T: HONOURABLE

MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA

Date of Hearing : 18.11.2025 :: Date of Judgment :23.12.2025

JUDGMENT

ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.

1. This writ petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing the impugned order dated 18.03.2025 (Annexure-8) passed in Consolidation Revision Petition No.94/2020 by the Addl. Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Keonjhar (Opp. Party No.4).

2. The factual backgrounds of this writ petition, which prompted the petitioner for filing of the same is that, the case land originally belonged to one Batakrushna Das. The Sabik R.o.R of the case land was published in his name i.e. in the name of Batakrushna Das. The said Batakrushna Das died leaving behind his wife Bimala Das @ Bewa as his sole successor.

After the death of Batakrushna Das, the case land was devolved upon his widow successor i.e. Bimala Das @ Bewa. While Bimala Das @ Bewa being the sole successor of Batakrushna Das was the owner and in possession over the case land, she sold the same to the father of the petitioner i.e. Raghunath Das through sale deed No.1142 dated 21.12.1965 and delivered possession thereof.

For which, on the basis of the said sale deed No.1142 dated 21.12.1965, Raghunath Das (purchaser) became the owner of the same and possessed the same exclusively. The said Raghunath Das mutated the case land to his name through Mutation Case No.646 of 1966-67 and on the basis of the order passed on dated 14.12.1966 vide Annexure-2 in Mutation Case No.646 of 1966-67 by the Tahasildar, Champua, R.o.R of the case land was prepared in the name of Raghunath Das (father of the petitioner).

Then, father of the petitioner paid the rent of the case land in his name and obtained rent receipts vide Annexures 3 and 3A. The father of the petitioner i.e. Raghunath Das and his family members are staying at Jamshedpur in the State of Jharkhand, because, the father of the petitioner was an employee of the Steel Plant, Jamshedpur. The vendor of the father of the petitioner i.e. Bimala Das @ Bewa died on

20.04.1996, which has been reflected in the death certificate vide Annexure-5. The father of the petitioner i.e. Raghunath Das died on dated 05.01.2001, which was been reflected in the death certificate vide Annexure-6.

As, the petitioner along with his family members were staying at Jharkhand, for which, they could not take step during settlement operation for recording the case land in the name of the father of the petitioner. Therefore, the settlement authorities published the final R.o.R of the case land vide Annexure-4 in the year 1998 in the name of a dead person i.e. Bimala Das @ Bewa (vendor of the father of the petitioner) erroneously and illegally under Khata No.476, though, much prior to the publication of R.o.R i.e. much prior to April, 1998, the vendor of the father of the petitioner i.e. Bimala das @ Bewa had expired, because her date of death was 20.04.1996.

The father of the petitioner i.e. Raghunath Das died on dated 05.01.2001 leaving behind the petitioner and others as his successors. For which, after the death of the father of the petitioner, the case land devolved upon the petitioner-

Manoranjan Das and others. Therefore, the petitioner along with others have become the owners and in possession over the case land. When the petitioner came to know about the erroneous publication of Hal R.o.R of the case land under Khata No.476 in the name of dead person i.e. Bimala Das @ Bewa, who had no interest in the case land and Bimala Das has no legal heir, then, the petitioner filed Consolidation Revision Petition No