WP(C)/18647/2014 of HADIBANDHU MAHAKUD Vs STATE on 20 July 2026

JUDGMENT

By the Bench;

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Petitioner, in this writ petition, seeks to assail the order dated 27.04.2013 (Annexure-1) passed by Assistant Settlement Officer, Rental Colony, BBSR in Objection Case No.13844/2671 of 2013. The petitioner also assails the Record of Rights published in the name of the Government in respect of the land leased out in his favour.

3. Ms. Priyadarshinee, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner applied for lease of a piece of Government land. Accordingly, W.L. Case No. 824 of 1974 was initiated on the board of Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar and Plot No.1249 of Khata No.420 (325/26) to an extent of Ac 1.435 decimal in mouza Partharagadia in the District of Khordha (erstwhile District of Puri) (For brevity, “the leasehold property”) was leased out in favour of the Petitioner.

4. Subsequently, the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar, initiated the L.R. Case No.623 of 1987 under Section 7-A (3) of the Odisha Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 (For brevity, ‘the OGLS Act’), to test the validity of the lease granted in favour of the Petitioner and cancelled the lease granted in favour of the Petitioner vide order dated 21.09.1987.

5. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner moved this Court in W.P.(C) No.4814 of 2005. This Court vide order dated 20th June, 2005 set aside the order passed in L.R. Case No.623 of 1987 and remitted the matter to the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar, for fresh adjudication of the revision. On remand, the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar vide order dated 11.08.2006 upheld the lease granted in favour of the Petitioner in W.L. Case No.824 of 1974. The Record of Rights was also corrected in the name of the Petitioner accordingly.

6. While the matter stood thus and the Petitioner being in possession of the leasehold property peacefully, sold different parcels of the leasehold property (sub-plots) to 11 persons for his legal necessity, which is more fully described in the following table. Sr. No. Name of the Purchaser Area Date of Sale Deed

1. Paliar Peleya Ac. 0.065 dec 27.09.10

2. Paliar Peleya Ac. 0.058 dec 31.01.11

3. Anshuman Das Ac. 0.055 dec 18.07.11

4. Bibhuranjan Nayak Ac. 0.061 dec 18.07.11

5. Bishnu Charan Sahoo Ac. 0.062 dec 18.07.11

6. Deva Brata Mishra Ac. 0.055 dec 18.07.11

7. Kedar Ranjan Pandu Ac. 0.066 dec 18.07.11

8. Shubhranshu Das Ac. 0.055 dec 18.07.11

9. Nihar Ranjan Nayak Ac. 0.055 dec 01.08.11

10. Ruturaj Das Ac. 0.063 dec 01.08.11

11. Ranjan Behera Ac. 0.040 dec

6.1. After alienation, the Petitioner retained the rest portion of the leasehold property with him. As such, only sub-plot no. 1 at measuring Ac 0.055 decimals and sub-plot no. 8 at measuring Ac 0.080 decimal of land of mouza Patharagadia out of the leasehold property (for brevity, ‘the case land’) are available with him.

7. When the matter stood thus, settlement operation started in the area. Preliminary Record of Rights under Section 12 of the Odisha Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 (for brevity, ‘the

Settlement Act’) was published in the name of the Government. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner filed an objection under Section 12 of the Settlement Act for correction of the Record of Rights.

8. The Assistant Settlement Officer, on the very date of taking up the objection case, passed the impugned order on 27.04.2013 (Annexure-1). It is submitted by Ms. Priyadarshinee, learned Counsel that the objection of the Petitioner was rejected on the pretext that by influencing the Government officials and without following the procedure enshrined in the OGLS Act, the lease was granted in favour of the Petitioner. It was further held that the Petitioner could not produce the relevant documents and map concerning the lease granted in his favour. Accordingly, the Assistant Settlement Officer, Rental Colony, Bhubaneswar directed to record the land in Government khata.

9. Ms. Priyadarshinee, learned Counsel fairly submits that the Petitioner being ignorant, could not prefer any appeal under Section 12-A of the Settlement Act before publication of the final Record of Rights. He could not also file a revision under Section 15 (b) of the Settlement Act challenging the correctness of the entries in the final Record of Rights published in the name of the Government in respect of the leasehold property.

9.1. It is further submitted that some of the purchasers, namely, Sri Anshuman Das had filed W.P.(C) No.19701 of 2014 assailing the similar nature of order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Rental Colony, Bhubaneswar and this Court vide judgment dated 29.10.2025, set aside the said order holding it to be without jurisdiction and directed the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar to record the land purchased by him in his name and to correct the Record of Right accordingly. Likewise, another purchaser, namely, Sri Bibhuranjan Nayak had filed W.P.(C) No.19076 of

2014, assailing a similar nature of order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer in the objection case, which was disposed of on 28.10.2025 setting aside the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer in the objection case, holding it to be without jurisdiction and directing the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar to publish the Record of Right in his name, namely Sri Bibhuranjan Nayak. Thus, the Petitioner being the lessee from whom the above named persons purchased different portions of the leasehold property, deserves similar treatment and the impugned order passed in the objection case under Annexure-1 is liable to be set aside and the case land, which is under occupation of the Petitioner should be recorded in his name.

9.2. It is further submitted that the lease was granted in favour of the Petitioner under the provisions of the OGLS Act. Thus, the Assistant Settlement Officer lacks jurisdiction to sit over the validity of such lease granted in favour of the Petitioner, more particularly, when the lease granted in favour of the Petitioner was confirmed in a revision under Section 7-A(3) of the OGLS Act in L.R. Case No.623 of 1987. Thus, non-filing of the appeal under Section 12-A as well as revision under Section 15(b) of the Settlement Act does not validate the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer under Annexure-1, which is otherwise without jurisdiction.

10. The order being without jurisdiction is non est in the eye of law and does not confer any right on the State Government, in whose favour the Record of Right has been published. Thus, any action taken pursuant to the said order under Annexure-1 including Record of Rights in respect of the leasehold property published under Section 12-B of the Settlement Act in the name of the government is also illegal and unjustified and is liable to be set aside. She verily relied upon the case of Vijay Krishna Poulrty Pvt. Ltd., Surya Nagar, Unit No.VII, Bhubaneswar represented through its Director, P. Vivek Vs. State of Orissa & ors. (W.P.(C) No.8774 of 2019), Anshuman Das Vs. State of Odisha (W.P.(C) No.19701 of 2014 disposed of on 29.10.2025) and Bibhuranjan Nayak Vs. State of Odisha (W.P.(C) No.19076 of 2014 disposed of on 28.10.2025) in support of her submission.

11. Relying upon the aforesaid case laws, learned Counsel submits that when an order is without jurisdiction and the authority exercised the power usurping his jurisdiction, a writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable. It is further submitted that the Settlement Authorities are bent upon to record the land in favour of the State Government. Thus, no fruitful purpose would be served by filing a revision under Section 15(b) of the Settlement Act at this stage.

12. It is her submission that earlier this writ petition was disposed of by a common order along with a batch of writ petitions including Narottam Rath Vs. State of Odisha. In the said batch of writ petitions, this Court set aside the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Bhubaneswar and directed to record the land in favour of the respective Petitioners. Assailing the same, the State Government filed different Special Leave Petitions before Hon’ble Supreme Court. The batch of Special Leave Petitions were disposed of by a common order dated 17.12.2024 with the following order:- "Delay condoned.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that the judgment needs to be quashed and set aside for the simple reason that

instead of deciding each case individually, on its given fact, the High Court proceeded to club and decide all the matters by presuming the facts common/identical and framing a common question of law.

As such on this short ground alone, the judgment requires interference, we are of the considered view that each case had to be considered on its own merits.

Whether the power exercised by the ASO under the provisions of Section 12 of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 were exercised prior to the finalization of the Record of Rights or at a subsequent stage was not considered by the High Court. Also as to whether the aggrieved parties had exhausted their remedies as provided under Section 12A and/or Section 15B of the said Act is also not considered by the High Court. The High Court proceeded on the assumption that all the petitioners before the Court had leases in their favour, in relation to which no Record of Rights was required to be prepared in terms of Section 12 of the said Act.

As such, on these grounds alone, without commenting on the merits of the issue and the contentions raised before us, we remand the matter to the High Court for consideration afresh.

We hope and expect that each case would be considered and decided separately, though expeditiously. All rights and contentions inter se the parties are left open to be agitated before the High Court.

The parties are directed to appear before the High Court on 15.1.2025. The parties undertake to fully co-operate in the proceedings before the High Court.

The special leave petitions are disposed of as above.”

13. Hence, this writ petition is being taken up independently on its own merit.

14. Mr. Beura, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the Petitioner having not exhausted the remedy available under the Settlement Act, the writ petition under Article 226 and 227 would not be maintainable. No reason has been assigned by the Petitioner for not exhausting the remedy under Section 12-A and 15(b) of the Settlement Act. Referring to the Counter Affidavit, he submits that since no document in support of the case of the Petitioner was filed before the Assistant Settlement Officer, Rental Colony, Bhubaneswar, he had no other option than to reject the objection case filed by the Petitioner and to issue direction to maintain the Record of Right of the leasehold property in the name of the State Government.

14.1. It is further submitted that the writ petition arises out of an order passed under Settlement Act. Thus, learned single judge has the jurisdiction to entertain the same. The writ petition is not in the roaster of this Bench. This Bench has only been assigned to hear the matter arising out of a lease. As such the writ petition may not be entertained by this Bench.

14.2. It is further submitted that the impugned order being not challenged in the forum available under law, the writ petition should not be entertained and the Petitioner should be relegated to avail remedy under Section 15(b) of the Settlement Act as the final Record of Right in respect of Mauza Patharagadia has already been published in the meantime.

15. Mr. Behera, learned Counsel appearing for the Opposite Party Nos.5 & 6, who are two of the purchasers from the lessee out of the leasehold property, supports the case of the Petitioner and submits that the impugned order under Annexure-1 should be set aside and the land purchased by them should be recorded in their names.

16. Heard, learned Counsel for the Parties. Perused the case record.

17. Perusal of the impugned order under Annexure-1 reveals that the Asst. Settlement Officer conveniently ignored the settlement made in favour of the Petitioner, which conferred a title by virtue of lease granted in his favour. Thus, the Asst. Settlement Officer appears to have acted illegally in not taking into consideration the lease granted in favour of the Petitioner. The Asst. Settlement Officer while disposing of the objection filed under Section 12 of the Settlement Act, acted without jurisdiction by impliedly cancelling the lease granted in favour of the Petitioner, which has already been confirmed by the Additional District Magistrate in L.R. Case No.623 of 1987. Law is well settled that the lease granted under the OGLS Act cannot be set aside or cancelled in a proceeding under the Settlement Act. Thus, the Asst. Settlement Officer, Rental Colony, Bhubaneswar acted without jurisdiction in directing to record the land in favour of the State Government more particularly when the lease granted in favour of the Petitioner was held to be valid. Thus, rejecting the objection filed by the Petitioner under Section 12 of the Settlement Act is also illegal and without jurisdiction.

18. In the case of Vijay Krishna Poultry Pvt. Ltd. (supra), this Court held as under:

“30. Nevertheless, the writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution can interfere with an order passed by the statutory authority when it acts in a manner not recognized under law. In all these writ petitions, the properties in question were settled under the provisions of the O.G.L.S. Act. The settlement authority also accepted the same and proceeded in the settlement operation up to the stage of Section 11 of the Act, 1958. But, surprisingly the authority under the Act has acted in a different manner and passed the impugned orders without recognizing the settlement of the land under the provisions of the O.G.L.S. Act. Law is well settled that the authorities under the Act cannot sit over the settlement made under the O.G.L.S. Act. There is ample provision under the O.G.L.S. Act to cancel the lease granted in favour of beneficiary and in fact, the said settlements had undergone the test of its validity. It appears from the impugned orders that the Assistant Settlement Officer/Addl. Sub-Collector conveniently avoided the settlement made under the O.G.L.S. Act by ignoring the same, which is not permissible under law. The impugned orders have, in effect, resulted in cancelling the lease granted in favour of beneficiary, which is not within the domain of the settlement authorities. My view gets support from the case of Lily Nanda -vs- State of Odisha reported in 2018 (1) OLR

559. As such, the impugned orders are without jurisdiction and the same are void. The action taken or publication made pursuant to the said void orders are also equally ineffective and no nest in the eyes of law. Thus, final publication of the R.O.Rs. under Section 12-B of the Act, 1958 pursuant to the void orders is not sustainable in the eyes of law.”

19. This Court while recording its finding in Vijay Krishna Poultry Pvt. Ltd. (supra), referred to Lily Nanda –v- State of Odisha; 2018 (I) OLR 559. The judgment rendered in Lily Nanda (supra) was assailed in W.A. No.535 of 2018. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court while dismissing the W.A., held that the ratio in the case of Lily Nanda (supra) will not be treated as a precedent. Be that as it may, this Court in the case of Vijay Krishna Poultry Pvt. Ltd. (supra), has also relied upon several other case laws to come to the conclusion as aforesaid. Further, in the case of Whirlpool Corporation –v- Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others; (1998) 8 SCC 1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “20. Much water has flown under the bridge, but there has been no corrosive effect on these decisions which, though old continue to hold the field with the result that law as to the jurisdiction of the High Court in entertaining a writ petition under

Article 226 of the Constitution, in spite of the alternative statutory remedies, is not affected, specially in a case where the authority against whom the writ is filed is shown to have had no jurisdiction or had purported to usurp jurisdiction without any legal foundation.”

19.2. The ratio in the case of Whirlpool Corporation (supra) was subsequently followed in Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. –v- The Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority and others; 2023 SCC OnLine SC 95.

20. Thus, in view of the ratio in the case of Whirlpool Corporation (supra) and Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. (supra), we have no hesitation to hold that the order passed by the Settlement Authority directing to record the case land in favour of the State Government being without jurisdiction is without jurisdiction, is non-est in the eye of law. As such, any action taken/order passed pursuant to the said order including publication of RoR in the name of the Government is also equally bad and without jurisdiction and thus cannot sustain. As such, a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is maintainable, albeit a statutory remedy under Section 15 (b) of the Settlement was available to the Petitioners to assail the correctness of entries in the final RoR in the name of the Government published under Section 12-B of the Settlement Act.

20.1. As already held the impugned orders under Annexure-1 is without jurisdiction and hence void ab initio, as the Assistant Settlement Officer by directing the leasehold property to be recorded in the name of the State Government has impliedly cancelled the lease granted by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar under the OGLS Act Hence, the writ petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, is maintainable. As such, the impugned orders under Annexure-1 being not sustainable in the eye of law, is set aside.

21. Of course, Mr. Behura learned Additional Government Advocate raised a technical objection that this Bench lacks jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. It is his submission that the matter is not in the roster of this Bench as the writ petition arises out of an order passed under Settlement Act. The same is not in the roster of this Bench. This Bench is only competent to hear the writ petitions arising out of lease. The objection raised is not sustainable for the simple reason that the Settlement Authority while passing the impugned order under Annexure-1 tried to test the validity of a lease granted in favour of the Petitioner. Thus this Bench has ample jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. Further on earlier occasion a coordinate Bench has entertained the present writ petition and no such objection wqs raised by learned State counsel.

22. As discussed earlier the Petitioner has not exhausted the statutory remedy under Section 12-A of the Settlement Act. Thus, the question arises as to whether the Petitioner should be relegated to work out the remedy under Section 15(b) of the Settlement Act or not. In view of the discussions made above, relegating the Petitioner to avail the remedy under Section 15 (b) of the Settlement Act will further harass him, as he has been fighting litigations since 2013.

23. Further in view of the discussions made, nothing remains to be adjudicated in a revision under Section 15(b) of the Settlement Act. Thus, the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar, has no other option than to correct the RoR by virtue of the settlement made in favour of the lessee, namely, Hadibandhu Mahakhud, which has been tested and held to be valid by the Additional

District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar in a suo motu revision initiated under Section 7-A(3) of OGLS Act.

24. Rule 34 of the Odisha Survey and Settlement Rules, 1962, provides that the Tahasildar has the power to correct the entries even after publication of the final RoR under Section 12-B of the Settlement Act, if directed by a competent Court of law. Hence, it is directed that the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar shall record the case land in favour of the Petitioner and publish the RoR accordingly within a period of eight weeks hence. The corrected copy of the RoR prepared in the name of the Petitioner shall be supplied to him forthwith.

25. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

Urgent certified copy of this judgment be granted on proper application.

(K.R. Mohapatra)

Judge

(S.K. Mishra)

Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated 20th July, 2026/Banita Digitally Signed Signed by: BANITA PRIYADARSHINI PALEI Designation: SR. STENOGRAPHER Reason: AUTHENTICATION Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 22-Jul-2026 17:38:19 Signature Not Verified