The Orissa High Court has clarified that Assistant Settlement Officers (ASOs) under the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 (OSS Act) cannot exercise suo motu powers to override or question lease orders made by competent authorities under the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 (OGLS Act). The decision upholds existing precedent and conclusively settles the jurisdictional limits of settlement authorities, providing binding authority across subordinate courts in Odisha.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP(C)/19077/2014 of RUTURAJ DAS Vs STATE |
| CNR | ODHC010077722014 |
| Date of Registration | 29-09-2014 |
| Decision Date | 02-01-2023 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | THE CHIEF JUSTICE Dr. S. Muralidhar; JUSTICE M.S. Raman |
| Court | Orissa High Court |
| Bench | THE CHIEF JUSTICE Dr. S. Muralidhar, JUSTICE M.S. Raman |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority within Odisha; persuasive elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms previous Orissa High Court Division Bench and Single Judge decisions |
| Type of Law | Land revenue law; jurisdiction/administrative law |
| Questions of Law | Whether ASO under OSS Act can act suo motu to override lease orders passed under the OGLS Act at draft ROR stage |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Assistant Settlement Officer (ASO) under the OSS Act does not have jurisdiction to question, cancel, or override lease orders validly made by competent authorities under the OGLS Act. The ASO is required to act strictly within the powers conferred by the OSS Act and cannot use the process of recording draft or final ROR to relitigate title or cancel leases. Only the authorities under the OGLS Act can adjudicate on the validity or cancellation of government land leases. Even if a previous court order generally directs scrutiny of lease grants, the ASO must follow proper statutory procedure and cannot unilaterally alter ROR entries contrary to valid lease orders. All actions contrary to this, including publication of RORs treating land as government land without following procedure under OGLS Act, are void for want of jurisdiction. The judgment clarifies the boundaries of authorisation between survey/settlement authorities and land grant authorities. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petitioners challenged ASO orders passed under the OSS Act, where the ASO, while dealing with mutation/recording of purchasers’ names in the ROR (Record of Rights) based on registered sale deeds, acted suo motu to decline such requests and directed land to be recorded in the name of the State. This occurred even when competent authorities had confirmed leases under the OGLS Act. The disputes relate to lands in and around Bhubaneswar, affected by scrutiny into allegedly irregular government leases. In all petitions, the impugned orders were passed at the preliminary draft ROR stage, sometimes after multiple rounds of litigation, and despite the absence of objections or contrary orders from lease authorities. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and authorities in Odisha dealing with matters under OSS Act/OGLS Act |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts handling similar land settlement/lease-jurisdiction questions |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that settlement authorities (ASOs) under the OSS Act cannot revisitate or override lease orders passed under the OGLS Act, even at the draft ROR stage.
- Even a general judicial direction to scrutinise land leases does not empower settlement authorities to usurp the functions of lease-granting authorities or to cancel/ignore pre-existing lease decisions.
- Orders of ASOs or related appellate authorities acting beyond jurisdiction are void and liable to be set aside, including any consequential RORs.
- Directions for fresh proceedings may not be warranted where matters have already gone through repeated rounds of litigation and the legal position is settled.
- Government must use the specific provisions under the OGLS Act, such as Section 3-B (resumption and penalty), to recover government lands rather than acting via settlement powers or through the ROR process.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
The Court surveyed a line of Division Bench and Single Judge decisions on the question of whether ASOs exercising powers solely under the OSS Act can, while dealing with ROR mutations, revisit the validity of leases which have been confirmed by authorities under the OGLS Act. The Court highlighted that according to established legal principles (see Babu Verghese, Nazir Ahmad, and others), when a statute prescribes the manner in which a power is to be exercised, it must be done only in that manner or not at all. The scheme of the OSS Act and OGLS Act divides the roles: the settlement authorities are limited to updating records based on existing valid title; they are not authorised to investigate, cancel, or set aside lease grants, which is the exclusive task of authorities under the OGLS Act following due process.
The Court strongly relied on earlier Orissa High Court judgments, which consistently held that ASOs are bound by lease orders unless set aside by competent authority, and any contrary action is beyond jurisdiction and void. The Court also reiterated that if the State seeks to nullify a lease or resume land, it must do so under proper statutory provisions, not by enabling ASOs to override existing rights in the course of ROR settlement. To prevent unnecessary multiplication of litigation and provide closure, the Court refused to remand the cases and directed direct correction of RORs as per valid leases.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioners:
- ASOs acted suo motu and beyond jurisdiction by refusing to carry out mutation in ROR in favour of purchasers/lessees, despite valid lease orders under OGLS Act.
- The land was validly leased or purchased based on proper sale deeds.
- Repeated litigation has occurred due to unauthorised encroachment of jurisdiction by settlement authorities.
- ASOs cannot ignore or cancel prior lease orders under a different Act.
Respondents (State):
- No counter affidavits were filed by the State in most petitions despite prolonged pendency.
- State’s alleged rationale for action was general judicial directions to scrutinise all irregular land leases.
Factual Background
The batch of writ petitions arose from disputes about recording the names of purchasers or lessees in the Record of Rights (ROR) for land situated in Bhubaneswar and its outskirts, Khurda District. Petitioners or their predecessors had obtained leases under the OGLS Act or purchased land via registered sale deeds. On the basis of prior High Court directions to scrutinise irregular leases, ASOs declined to record the petitioners’ names in the ROR, instead directing the land to be shown in the Government’s name, even where lease validity was reaffirmed by competent ADM authority. The disputed ASO actions were taken at the draft ROR stage, often after multiple rounds of litigation.
Statutory Analysis
- OSS Act: The Court considered Sections 12 (draft ROR publication), 12-A (appeal against orders at draft ROR stage), 12-B (final publication), 13 (presumption of correctness of final ROR entries), and 15(b) (revision before Board of Revenue). The statutory powers conferred on ASOs do not include authority to cancel or invalidate lease orders previously made under the OGLS Act.
- OGLS Act: The Act lays out a detailed process and hierarchy for granting, confirming, and if necessary, cancelling government land leases (Section 3-B for resumption and penalty). Any action regarding the validity or termination of lease must be undertaken per the procedures prescribed in this Act, not incidentally via mutation procedures under OSS Act.
- Interpretation Principle: If a statute prescribes a manner for exercising a power, it must be exercised in that manner alone (citing Supreme Court: Babu Verghese, Nazir Ahmad).
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or separate concurring opinions were recorded in this judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- The Court, instead of remanding matters for a fresh decision by the ASO, gave direct directions for entry of names of petitioners in ROR due to multiplicity of litigation and a settled legal position.
- The Court clarified that the presence or absence of objections at the draft ROR stage or final publication does not expand ASOs’ jurisdiction to enter into matters properly reserved for lease-granting authorities.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – The judgment reaffirmed and applied a consistent line of Orissa High Court precedents regarding the jurisdiction of ASOs and the non-derogability of lease orders under the OGLS Act.