WP(C)/8831/2014 of KASTURI KHADIA Vs STATE and ORS. on 8 July 2026

JUDGMENT

By the Bench;

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

// 2 //

W.P.(C) No. 8831 OF 2014 Page 2 of 14

2. Pursuant to the direction of this Court dated 12th March, 2026, an affidavit explaining the delay in filing the writ petition and the reasons not to exhaust remedy under Section 12-A of the Odisha Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 (for brevity "the Settlement Act") was filed by the Petitioner. Accordingly, learned State Counsel sought for an adjournment to examine the same. Thus, the matter stood adjourned to be listed today, i.e., on 8th July, 2026.

2.1 Today, Mr. Biswal, learned Additional Standing Counsel submits that he has already examined the affidavit filed by the Petitioner explaining the delay and the reasons for not exhausting the remedy under Section 12-A of the Settlement Act and he does not dispute the same.

3. On the request of learned counsel for the parties, this Court proceeds to dispose of the writ petition.

4. Heard Mr. Bhuyan, learned Senior Advocate along with Mr. Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. Biswal, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State.

5. The Petitioner in this writ petition seeks to assail the order dated 15th July, 2013 (Annexure-5) passed by the Asst. Settlement Officer, Rental Colony, Bhubaneswar-Opposite Party No.2 in suo motu Objection Case No.10090 of 2013 initiated under Section 12 of the Settlement Act.

// 3 //

W.P.(C) No. 8831 OF 2014 Page 3 of 14

6. Backdrop of the case, as reveal from the writ petition, is that one Sri Rabindra Kumar Sahoo made an application for settlement of a piece of Government land and, accordingly, W.L. Lease Case No. 1056 of 1978 was initiated on the file of the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar under the provisions of the Odisha Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 (for brevity, "the OGLS Act"). The lease in favour of the said Sri Rabindra Kumar Sahoo (lessee) was granted by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar vide order dated 13th October, 1978. Subsequently, a suo motu revision under Section 7-A(3) of the OGLS Act was initiated by the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar in Lease Revision Case No. 9 of 1982, and the lease granted in favour of the said Sri Rabindra Kumar Sahoo was cancelled vide order dated 8th January, 1988.

6.1 Being aggrieved, said Sri Rabindra Kumar Sahoo preferred O.J.C. No.13503 of 1999 before this Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 4th February, 2000 by setting aside the order of cancellation dated 8th January, 1988 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar, and remitting the matter to the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar for fresh adjudication of Lease Revision Case No. 9 of 1982 in accordance with law.

7. On remand the Additional District Magistrate upon hearing said lessee, namely, Sri Rabindra Kumar Sahoo, vide his order dated 29th May, 2000 (Annexure-2), confirmed the lease granted in favour of said Sri Rabindra Kumar Sahoo.

// 4 //

W.P.(C) No. 8831 OF 2014 Page 4 of 14

When the matter stood thus, the Petitioner purchased AC. 0.02 decimals of land out of the leasehold property and got the land mutated in her name in Mutation Khata No.645/147, Plot No.2708/3273 to an extent of Ac.0.02 decimals situated under Bhubaneswar Tahasil in the district of Khordha (for brevity ‘the case land’). Accordingly, mutated RoR was published in the name of the Petitioner vide Annexure-1. When the matter stood thus, the Petitioner came to know that the lease granted in favour of Sri Rabindra Kumar Sahoo was cancelled vide order dated 15th July, 2013 by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Bhubaneswar. On verification in the office of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Rental Colony, Bhubaneswar, the Petitioner came to know that in suo motu Objection Case No.10090 of 2013 initiated under Section 12 of the Settlement Act, the lease granted in favour of said Sri Rabindra Kumar Sahoo was cancelled. Although the Petitioner was made a party to the said objection case, no notice whatsoever was served on the Petitioner to contest the objection case and place documents in support of her claim. It is also ascertained by the Petitioner that on the very day of initiation of the suo motu Objection Case No.10090 of 2013, said objection case was disposed of vide order dated 15th July, 2013. Thus, the Petitioner had no opportunity of hearing in the said case. She had also no knowledge of either initiation or disposal of the said objection case. By that time, the final RoR in respect of Village Andharua, Bhubaneswar was published on 21st November,

// 5 //

W.P.(C) No. 8831 OF 2014 Page 5 of 14

2013. Thus, the Petitioner filed the present writ petition assailing the order under Annexure-5.

8. It is submitted by Mr. Bhuyan, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioner that the present writ petition filed by the Petitioner was taken up along with several other cases, the lead case being Narottam Rath –v- State of Odisha and others, and was disposed of vide common judgment dated 2nd January, 2023 by this Court. The said common order passed by this Court in the batch of writ petitions, was challenged by the State of Odisha before Hon’ble Supreme Court in different SLP(C). The SLP(C) filed against the order passed in respect of the Petitioner was assailed in SLP(C) No.2612 of 2024 before Hon’ble Supreme Court. All the SLP(C)s were disposed of by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by a common order dated 12th December, 2024. The said common order is as follows:

“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 to be 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

// 6 //

W.P.(C) No. 8831 OF 2014 Page 6 of 14

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.”

9. It is submitted by Mr. Bhuyan, learned Senior Advocate that the Petitioner had no opportunity to exhaust the remedy under Section 12-A of the Settlement Act as she had no knowledge about disposal of the objection case. The Petitioner was neither noticed nor provided with any opportunity by the Asst. Settlement Officer, Rental Colony, Bhubaneswar to have her say in the matter. That apart, the suo motu objection case, i.e., Objection Case No.10090 of 2013 was disposed of on the very date of its initiation vide order dated 15th July, 2013 (Annexure-5). The Petitioner only came to know about the

// 7 //

W.P.(C) No. 8831 OF 2014 Page 7 of 14

order passed in objection case, when the final RoR in respect of the land purchased by her was published in Government Khata on 21st November, 2013. The Petitioner could have filed a revision under Section 15(b) of the Settlement Act assailing the correctness of the entries in the final RoR in respect of the case land. However, the impugned order under Annexure-5 was without jurisdiction, as the Assistant Settlement Officer, Rental Colony, Bhubaneswar, while adjudicating Objection Case No. 10090 of 2013, sat over the validity and correctness of the settlement of the case land in favour of the lessee, namely, Sri Rabindra Kumar Sahoo, under the provisions of the OGLS Act. As such, this Court is competent to entertain the writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

10. In support of his case, Mr. Bhuyan, learned Senior Advocate also relied upon the case of Whirlpool Corporation – v- Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others; (1998) 8 SCC

1. He further submits that the validity of the lease granted in favour of Sri Rabindra Kumar Sahoo was tested under Section 7- A(3) of the OGLS Act and the lease granted by the Tahasildar, was confirmed. Thereafter, the Petitioner purchased the case land from the lessee by virtue of a Registered Sale Deed and got the land mutated in her name. The RoR published in the name of the Petitioner was never set aside. Thus, the Settlement Authority had no authority or jurisdiction to sit over the lease granted in favour of Sri Rabindra Kumar Sahoo or the recording of the land in favour of the Petitioner. The land should have been recorded in

// 8 //

W.P.(C) No. 8831 OF 2014 Page 8 of 14

the name of the Petitioner in the settlement proceeding. In view of the fact that the impugned order under Annexure-5 was without jurisdiction, the same is liable to be set aside and the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar should be directed to record the land in favour of the Petitioner.

11. Mr. Biswal, learned Additional Standing Counsel, referring to the counter affidavit filed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Rental Colony, Bhubaneswar, submits that there were a lot of irregularities in granting the lease in favour of the lessee, namely, Sri Rabindra Kumar Sahoo. The land was initially recorded under the Government Khata. Subsequently, the lease of the case land was granted in favour of Sri Rabindra Kumar Sahoo, and the Petitioner purchased the case land from said Sri Rabindra Kumar Sahoo.

11.1 He further submits that the Petitioner has not exhausted the remedy either by filing Appeal under Section 12-A or by way of revision under Section 15(b) of the Settlement Act. Hence, the writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. The Petitioner, if so advised, may avail the remedy under Section 15(b) of the Settlement Act by explaining the delay in filing the said revision. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ petition being not maintainable in law.

12. Taking note of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the case record, this Court finds that the lease granted in favour of said Sri Rabindra Kumar Sahoo in W.L. Lease Case No. 1056 of 1978 by the Tahasildar,

// 9 //

W.P.(C) No. 8831 OF 2014 Page 9 of 14

Bhubaneswar was initially cancelled vide order dated 8th January, 1988 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar in Lease Revision Case No. 9 of 1982 initiated under Section 7-A(3) of the OGLS Act. The said lessee, being aggrieved, filed O.J.C. No. 13503 of 1999 before this Court, and the order dated 8th January, 1988 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar was set aside by this Court, and the matter was remitted to the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar for fresh adjudication of Lease Revision Case No. 9 of 1982. On remand, the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar confirmed the lease granted in favour of Sri Rabindra Kumar Sahoo vide order dated 29th May, 2000. The said order was never challenged or set aside by any competent Court of law. Thereafter, the Petitioner purchased the case land from said Sri Rabindra Kumar Sahoo vide Registered Sale Deed dated 6th April, 2002 and got the land mutated in her name. The mutation RoR was also published in the name of the Petitioner vide Annexure-1. However, during the current settlement operation, Objection Case No.10090 of 2013 was initiated by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Bhubaneswar against the Petitioner.

13. It appears from the record that no notice whatsoever was served on the Petitioner, although the Petitioner was a party to the said Objection Case. It further appears that on the very date of initiation of the objection case, i.e., Objection Case No. 10090 of 2013 under Section 12 of the Settlement Act, the

// 10 //

W.P.(C) No. 8831 OF 2014 Page 10 of 14

Assistant Settlement Officer, Bhubaneswar, disposed of the same by directing recording of the case land in the name of the State Government vide order dated 15th July, 2013. Thereafter, the final RoR in respect of Village Andharua, Bhubaneswar, including the case land, was published on 21st November, 2013 in the name of the Government. Since the Petitioner had no knowledge of the initiation of Objection Case No. 10090 of 2013, there was no scope for her to avail the remedy under Section 12-A of the Settlement Act.

14. Mr. Biswal learned Additional Standing Counsel does not dispute the factual aspect of the case at hand. It is, however, submitted by Mr. Biswal, learned Additional Standing Counsel that the Petitioner could have availed the remedy under Section 15(b) of the Settlement Act before the Member, Board of Revenue for correction of the entries in the final RoR.

15. From the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the question that arises for consideration is as to whether this Court is competent to entertain the writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, when admittedly the Petitioner has not exhausted the remedy of revision under Section 15(b) of the Settlement Act.

16. Admittedly, the case land was leased out in favour of Sri Rabindra Kumar Sahoo under the provisions of OGLS Act. The lease granted in favour of Sri Rabindra Kumar Sahoo though initially cancelled by Additional district Magistrate, Bhubaneswar in suo motu Lease Revision Case No. 9 of 1982,

// 11 //

W.P.(C) No. 8831 OF 2014 Page 11 of 14

but, subsequently the said order of cancellation was challenged by the lessee before this Court in OJC No. O.J.C. No. 13503 of 1999 and by setting aside the order of cancellation, this Court remitted the matter to the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar for fresh adjudication of Lease Revision Case No. 9 of 1982. The Additional District Magistrate on remand confirmed the lease granted in favour the lessee, namely, Sri Rabindra Kumar Sahoo. Thereafter, the Petitioner purchased a piece of case land to the extent of Ac. 0.02 decimal and mutated in her name. Thus, the lease granted in favour of Sri Rabindra Kumar Sahoo still remains valid. Thus, the Assistant Settlement Officer, Bhubaneswar, who is a creature of the Settlement Act, could not have sat over the lease granted under the OGLS Act and delved into its validity. The order passed under the OGLS Act is binding on him. Further it appears from the impugned order Annexure-5 that the Assistant Settlement Officer, Bhubaneswar holding that the lease granted was not proper and valid, he proceeded to reject the Objection Case initiated under Section 12 of the Settlement Act. The Assistant Settlement Officer while exercising power under Section 12 of the Settlement Act is under legal obligation to respect the order passed or lease granted under the OGLS Act. Thus, we have no hesitation to hold that the order passed by the Settlement Authority directing to record the case land in Government Khata is without jurisdiction. An order, which is without jurisdiction, is non-est in the eye of law.

// 12 //

W.P.(C) No. 8831 OF 2014 Page 12 of 14

16.1. In view of the ratio in the case of Vijay Krishna Poultry Pvt. Ltd., Surya Nagar, Unit No.VII, Bhubaneswar represented through its Director, P. Vivek –v- State of Orissa and others (W.P. (C) No. 8774 of 2019, disposed of on 18th June, 2021) and Whirlpool Corporation (supra), the impugned order under Annexure-5 being without jurisdiction, this Court is competent to entertain writ petition in exercise of extraordinary power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India albeit availability of statutory remedy. Of course, while adjudicating the case of Vijay Krishna Poultry Pvt. Ltd. (supra) this Court amongst other, relied upon the case of Lily Nanda –v- State of Odisha; 2018 (I) OLR 559, which was subsequently set aside by this Court in an Intra Court Appeal, i.e., W.A. No.535 of 2018. However, in the case of Whirlpool Corporation (supra), 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.”

17. 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.

// 13 //

W.P.(C) No. 8831 OF 2014 Page 13 of 14

18. 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 of India is maintainable, albeit a statutory remedy under Section 15 (b) of the Settlement Act was available to the Petitioner to assail the correctness of entries in the final RoR in the name of the Government under Section 12-B of the Settlement Act.

19. The Petitioner is fighting out litigations since 2013. Thus, relegating the Petitioner to file a revision under Section 15(b) of the Settlement Act will serve no purpose, particularly in view of the observations here-in-above and on the other hand, it will certainly prejudice the Petitioners. Since the order basing upon which the final RoR has been published in favour of the State Government is held to be without jurisdiction, the same is not sustainable being non-est in the eye of law. Hence, the impugned order under Annexure-5 and subsequent orders passed/action taken including publication of the final RoR in favour of the State Government in respect of the case land, stand set aside.

20. In view of the discussions made above, the Tahsildar, Bhubaneswar has no other option than to correct the RoR in the name of the Petitioner in respect of the land she has purchased, under Rule 34 of the Odisha Survey and Settlement Rules, 1962. Even if the final RoR in respect of the case land has already been published in the name of the Government, but the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar is competent to correct the same in the name of the

// 14 //

W.P.(C) No. 8831 OF 2014 Page 14 of 14

Petitioner pursuant to the direction of a competent Court of law. Consequently, the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar is directed to record the land purchased by the Petitioner in her name within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment and supply the corrected RoR to the Petitioner forthwith.

21. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is accordingly 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

High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Dated 8th July, 2026/Madhusmita