Page 1 of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.20855 OF 2021 Arun Kumar Mohanty and another …. Petitioners Miss Deepali Mahapatra, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opp. Parties Mr. Dillip Kumar Mishra, Additional Government Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA ORDER Order No. 29.07.2021 02. 1. This matter is taken up through video conferencing mode. 2. The Petitioners in this writ petition seek to assail the order dated 29th June, 2013 (Annexure-11) passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Khordha, Camp at Bhubaneswar, Rental Colony-Opposite Party No.6 (presently functioning at Major Settlement Office, Jobra, Cuttack) in Objection Case No.3806 of 2013 as well as the R.O.R. published in pursuance thereof. The Petitioners also pray for a direction to record the land in question in their name. 3. It is submitted by Miss Mahapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioner that the land in question was settled in favour of one Maguni Dihudi, son of Aparti Dihudi of village Ogalapada, who was a landless Scheduled Caste person in Main Lease Case No.2210 of 1973 and individual Lease Case No.2221 of 1973 (Annexure-1 series). Accordingly, ROR in respect of Khata No.255/94, Plot No.19/1231 to an extent of area Ac.1.000 // 2 // Page 2 of 5 decimal of village Ogalapada was prepared in his name (the lessee). To meet his legal necessity, the lessee alienated the property to one Mayur Rubber Works, Bhubaneswar after obtaining the permission from the competent authority vide order dated 20th September, 1982 in Revenue Misc. Case No.1231 of 1982. Subsequently, said Mayur Rubber Works transferred a portion of the aforesaid land, i.e., Ac.0.200 decimal in favour of the Petitioner by virtue of registered sale deed No.625 dated 21st April, 1987. In the meantime, a proceeding was initiated under Section 7(A)(3) of the Odisha Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 in Revision Case No.392 of 1986 and the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar, vide his order dated 21st July, 1987, cancelled the said lease. Assailing the same, the present Petitioners filed OJC No.5014 of 1990 before this Court, which was allowed vide order dated 5th August, 1998 quashing the order of cancellation of the lease and remitted the matter back to the ADM, Bhubaneswar for fresh adjudication giving opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners. Upon remand, the ADM, Bhubaneswar, vide his order dated 20th June, 1994 (Annexure-7) confirmed the lease granted in favour of said Maguni Dehudi. 3.1 However, during settlement operation, the Yadast was prepared in the name of the Government of Odisha. Being aggrieved, the Petitioners filed Objection Case No.3806 of 2013 and the Assistant Settlement Officer, Bhubaneswar- Opposite Party No.6 while rejecting the claim of the Petitioner vide order dated 29th June, 2013 (Annexure-11), directed to record the land in Government Khata under Abada Jogya Anabadi status. Assailing the same, this writ petition has been filed. // 3 // Page 3 of 5 4. It is submitted by Miss Mahapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioners that although the impugned order reflects that the Petitioners were present at the time of hearing, but in fact, they were not served with notice and they were unaware of the developments of the Objection Case. As such, they could not produce relevant records in support of their case. It is her submission that the Settlement Authorities have no jurisdiction to sit over the settlement made under the lease principles. She accordingly prays to set aside the order under Annexure-11. She further submits that matter involving similar questions of law in W.P.(C) No.8774 of 2019 and batch of cases, disposed of on 18th June, 2021, this Court at paragraphs-30 and 33 held as follows:- 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 (I) 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. xx xx xx 33. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the settlement authorities have acted without jurisdiction in passing the impugned orders and as such, // 4 // Page 4 of 5 the final publication of the R.O.Rs. under Section 12-B of the Act, 1958 is also not sustainable in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the impugned orders assailed in the respective writ petitions as well as R.O.Rs. published in pursuance thereof are set aside. The matters are remitted back to the authorities for fresh adjudication of the same in accordance with law giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. Since the parties are litigating to assert their right for a considerable time, the settlement authorities are directed to conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of an authenticated copy of this order, which shall be produced by the Petitioners before the settlement authorities within a period of four weeks hence to receive further instruction in the matter.” 5. Mr. Mishra, learned AGA, on the other hand, vehemently objects to the above submission. He submits that since the final R.O.R. in respect of Ogalapada has already been published under Section 12-B of the Odisha Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 (for short ‘the Act’) in the name of the Government, the Petitioners have their remedy under Section 15(b) the Act to assail the correctness of the ROR published. Further, the Petitioners could have assailed the impugned order under Annexure-11 in appeal under Rule 42 of the Orissa Survey & Settlement Rules, 1962 (for short ‘the Rules’). As such, the writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. 6. Taking into consideration the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the legal issues decided in W.P.(C) No.8774 of 2019 along with a batch of writ petitions, this Court is of the considered view that the Assistant Settlement Officer has acted without jurisdiction in issuing direction to record the case land in the name of the Government Khata. 7. Accordingly, the impugned order under Annexure-11 being not sustainable in the eyes of law is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Assistant Settlement Officer, Khordha, Camp at Bhubaneswar, Rental Colony-Opposite Party // 5 // Page 5 of 5 No.6 (presently functioning at Major Settlement Office, Jobra, Cuttack) for fresh consideration of the case in accordance with law giving opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners. Consequently, the R.O.Rs (Annexure-12) published pursuant to the impugned order is also set aside. 7.1 Learned counsel for the Petitioners undertakes to produce an authenticated copy of this order before the Assistant Settlement Officer-Opposite Party No.6 (presently functioning at Major Settlement Office, Jobra, Cuttack) within a period of two weeks hence to receive further instruction in the matter for early adjudication of the Objection Case in accordance with law. 8. As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a printout of the order available in the High Court’s website, at par with certified copy, subject to attestation by the concerned advocate, in the manner prescribed vide Court’s Notice No.4587, dated 25th March, 2020 as modified by Court’s Notice No.4798, dated 15th April, 2021. (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge s.s.satapathy