The Orissa High Court has reaffirmed that Assistant Settlement Officers (ASO) acting under the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958, have no jurisdiction to override, cancel, or refuse consequential mutation relating to leases granted/confirmed under the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act, 1962. This ruling upholds a consistent line of precedent and provides binding authority for all subordinate courts and settlement authorities in Odisha, clarifying the scope and limit of powers under both statutes for all future land settlement and mutation disputes.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP(C)/19701/2014 of ANSHUMAN DAS Vs STATE |
| CNR | ODHC010046722014 |
| Date of Registration | 13-10-2014 |
| Decision Date | 29-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | Dr. S. Muralidhar, Chief Justice; Justice M.S. Raman |
| Court | Orissa High Court |
| Bench | Dr. S. Muralidhar, Chief Justice; Justice M.S. Raman |
| Precedent Value | Binding on all subordinate courts and authorities in Odisha |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing Division Bench and Single Judge precedents of the Orissa High Court |
| Type of Law | Land law, administrative law, statutory interpretation |
| Questions of Law | Whether ASOs under the OSS Act can exercise suo motu powers to override lease orders under OGLS |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Fundamental principle: when a statute prescribes a manner of exercise of power, it must only be performed that way. Powers given under OGLS Act can only be exercised by designated authorities and not by ASOs under the OSS Act. Various Division Bench and Single Judge decisions reiterate these jurisdictional boundaries. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petitioners, or their predecessors-in-interest, had obtained leases under the OGLS Act, later confirmed by ADM orders. ASOs, while dealing with mutation/entry in RORs, purported to exercise suo motu power to deny mutation or record land in the Government’s name, contrary to the valid lease orders. Court found such orders ultra vires the OSS Act. No counter affidavits filed by respondents in most cases. Matter had already witnessed multiple rounds of litigation. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and revenue/settlement authorities in Odisha, including ASOs and Settlement Officers |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, especially in analogous statutory settings |
| Follows | W.P.(C) No.18936/2013 (Mrs. Sneha Mohanty v. State of Odisha); other consistent Division Bench and Single Judge authorities as detailed above |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Unambiguously clarifies that ASOs under the OSS Act cannot question, nullify, or sidestep leases granted/affirmed under the OGLS Act and must mutation entries accordingly unless lease is cancelled through due process.
- The High Court expressly bars the practice of remanding matters for repetitive reconsideration by ASOs once the legal position is clear and litigation has already occurred multiple times.
- Codifies the obligation on mutation authorities to strictly follow the statutory scheme and avoid “suo motu” jurisdiction not authorized by the OSS Act.
- Lawyers can cite this judgment as binding precedent to challenge any mutation/ROR order passed by an ASO that ignores or attempts to override a valid lease/order under the OGLS Act.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court reviewed a history of litigation involving the mutation of leases granted under the OGLS Act that were subsequently denied by ASOs through suo motu orders under the OSS Act.
- Relied on a consistent line of prior judgments (Division Bench and Single Judge) which held that the validity or cancellation of a lease can only be determined by designated statutory authorities under the OGLS Act or its appellate hierarchy.
- Cited Supreme Court jurisprudence (including Babu Verghese, Nazir Ahmad, Capt. Sube Singh) on the principle that statutory power, if conferred to be exercised in a particular manner, must be exercised only in that manner or not at all.
- Rejected ASO attempts to interpret powers expansively or take over the role of authorities under the OGLS Act, finding such actions ultra vires.
- Found repeated remands unnecessary and obstructive due to multiple rounds of litigation already completed, and issued specific directions to rectify mutation/ROR entries within a limited timeframe.
- Concluded with directions to immediately record Petitioner names in the ROR as per valid lease orders, subject to the Government’s separate remedies under the OGLS Act for resumption or penalty, if so advised.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioners:
- ASOs under the OSS Act have no power to question, cancel, or override lease orders properly granted and affirmed under the OGLS Act.
- Petitioners’ right to have their names recorded in the ROR flows from lawful leases and valid ADM orders.
- ASO’s actions in refusing mutation and recording land in the name of the State lack jurisdiction and violate both statutory scheme and judicial precedents.
Respondent (State/Opposite Parties):
- No counter-affidavits were filed in many petitions.
Factual Background
Petitioners across several writ petitions either obtained, or traced their title through, leases granted under the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act, 1962, mostly in Bhubaneswar and its outskirts. In several instances, the validity of these leases was previously affirmed by the Additional District Magistrate (ADM) following earlier rounds of litigation. When the Petitioners sought corresponding mutation in their favour in the Record of Rights (ROR), Assistant Settlement Officers (ASOs) issued orders refusing the request and directed the land to be entered in the name of the Government, claiming suo motu jurisdiction under the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958. These mutation denials—despite absence of lease cancellation—led to the present round of writ petitions.
Statutory Analysis
- Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 (OSS Act): ASO’s power is confined to the preparation and publication of records of rights; has no statutory power to adjudicate on the validity of leases or override orders of competent authorities under the OGLS Act.
- Orissa Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 (OGLS Act): Provides for grant, cancellation, resumption, and penalty regarding government land. These powers are vested in designated authorities such as ADM; Section 3-B specifically deals with resumption and penalties.
- Key Principle: Where power is vested in an authority under a particular statute, such power must be exercised strictly as per the statutory process (as per Babu Verghese v. Bar Council of Kerala, Capt. Sube Singh v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor).
- OSS Rules: Final publication of ROR under Section 13 (read with Rule 29); aggrieved parties may prefer revision under Section 15(b) of the OSS Act. If final publication has not occurred, appeal lies under Section 12-A.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or separate concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
The Court declined to remand matters to the ASOs for fresh decision in light of multiple prior rounds of litigation and the settled legal position, opting instead for immediate and direct directions for necessary mutation entries within a fixed timeline.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Judgment follows, affirms, and reinforces a consistent line of Division Bench and Single Judge decisions of the Orissa High Court on the scope of ASO powers.