Orissa High Court
Hadibandhu Mahakhuda vs State Of Odisha on 20 July, 2026
Author: K.R. Mohapatra
Bench: K.R. Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.18647 OF 2014
(An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India)
*****
Hadibandhu Mahakhuda ...... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. State of Odisha, represented through its
Secretary to Government,Revenue &
Disaster Management Deptt., BBSR
2. The Addl. Sub-Collector-cum-Addl.
Settlement Officer, BBSR
3. The Asst. Settlement Officer, Rental Colony Camp,
Cuttack
4. The Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar
5. Ranjan Kumar Behera
6. Ragadhara Behera ...... Opp. Parties
Advocates appeared:
For Petitioners : Ms. Soumya Pridarshinee, Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Mr. Umesh Chandra Beura
Additional Government Advocate
Mr. Bhagaban Behera
(For O.P. Nos.5 & 6)
CORAM :
MR. JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
------------------------------------------------
Heard & Disposed of on: 20.07.2026
-------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.18647 OF 2014
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,
W.P.(C) No.18647 OF 2014
Page 2 of 13
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. Name of the Purchaser Area Date of Sale
No. 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 2011
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
W.P.(C) No.18647 OF 2014
Page 3 of 13
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
W.P.(C) No.18647 OF 2014
Page 4 of 13
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
W.P.(C) No.18647 OF 2014
Page 5 of 13
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 thatW.P.(C) No.18647 OF 2014
Page 6 of 13
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
W.P.(C) No.18647 OF 2014
Page 7 of 13
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.
W.P.(C) No.18647 OF 2014
Page 8 of 13
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 inW.P.(C) No.18647 OF 2014
Page 9 of 13
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
W.P.(C) No.18647 OF 2014
Page 10 of 13
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
W.P.(C) No.18647 OF 2014
Page 11 of 13
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
W.P.(C) No.18647 OF 2014
Page 12 of 13
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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BANITA PRIYADARSHINI PALEI
W.P.(C) No.18647 OF 2014
Designation: SR. STENOGRAPHER
Reason: AUTHENTICATION Page 13 of 13
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 22-Jul-2026 17:38:19
