IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C). No. 21539 of 2025 (An Application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India)

Durga Charan Swain ...… Petitioner -Versus-

State of Odisha and Ors .... Opposite Parties _____________________________________________

For Petitioner : Mr. R. C. Ojha, Advocate with Mr. G.N.Rout, Advocate For Opp. Party : Mr. S.S Routray, ASC _______________________________________________________

CORAM:

JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

JUDGMENT

20^th January, 2025 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

The petitioner challenges the order dated

30.11.2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner Settlement and Consolidation, Board of Revenue, Odisha in R.C. Case No. 192 of 2023.

2. The short facts of the case are that the petitioner is the owner in possession of the case land which was recorded in the Sabik Settlement as Khata No. 144 corresponding to Plot No. 476 in Mouza-Patapur. The kisam of the land is mentioned as SARAD-1 in the Sabik R.O.R., copy of which is enclosed as Anenxure-1. However, in the HAL R.O.R. published on 19.11.1983, the said land, which corresponds to Plot No. 913, was mentioned as ‘Gadia’. The petitioner therefore, filed the revision under Section 37(1) of OCH & PFL Act, 1972 for necessary correction of the R.O.R in respect of the nature of the land. The Revisional Court called for a report from the Amin who submitted took note of report dated 16.06.1979, clearly mentioning that the kisam of the land was SARAD-1 in Sabik and JALASAYA-II in HAL settlement.

3. Having regard to the above and on perusal of the materials on record, the Revisional Court remitted the matter to Tahasildar, Barang to correct the HAL R.O.R. after conducting a field inquiry, ascertaining physical possession, verifying HAL/Sabik co-relation, original relevant documents and following due procedure of law. Though the order is not adverse to the petitioner, yet he is aggrieved by the observation made by the Revisional Court regarding the judgment passed by a division Bench of this Court on 11.10.2012 in OJC No. 6721 of 1999 and W.P.(C). No. 8797 of 2004. It has been observed by the revisional Court that the case can be adjudicated effectively only as per the guidelines issued by this Court in the aforementioned judgment.

4. Mr. Rout, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the judgment passed in the above referred case is not applicable as the land in question is not located within the Cuttack Municipal Corporation area but in Barang. He further submits that the judgment relates only to tanks/water bodies in Cuttack city for which several guidelines were issued. Therefore, according to Mr. Rout, reference to the judgment is misconceived and may cause unnecessary confusion.

5. Mr. S.N.Pattnaik, learned AGA submits that there being no specific guidelines of the Government governing the dispute as the one in the present case, the Revisional Court directed the Tahasildar to take note of the guidelines contained in the aforementioned judgment.

6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the case record, this Court finds that there is no dispute that the land in question was recorded as SARAD-I in Sabik ROR but was mentioned as Gadia in the Hal R.O.R. The Amin’s report dated 16.06.1979 also speaks of the same thing. It is to be determined as to how the nature of the land changed from the SARAD-I to Gadia (Jalasaya). To the above extent therefore, the impugned order, in so far as it remits the matter to the Tahasildar to conduct a field inquiry and examine the relevant records cannot be faulted with. However, the observation relating to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the above writ application indeed appears to be misconceived.

7. Perusal of the judgment reveals that certain directions were issued but the same were only for preservation and conservation of tanks/water bodies in Cuttack city. Obviously, the directions cannot be ipso facto applied to other areas. In any case, this is not a matte