Orissa High Court holds that Assistant Settlement Officers (ASOs) have no jurisdiction under the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 (OSS Act) to override or set aside lease validity already determined under the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 (OGLS Act); reiterates that powers conferred on different authorities must be exercised only as prescribed by statute. Judgment affirms existing precedent and is binding on all subordinate authorities handling land recording and mutation matters in Odisha.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP(C)/19078/2014 of KEDAR RANJAN PANDU Vs STATE CNR ODHC010042282014 |
| Date of Registration | 29-09-2014 |
| Decision Date | 02-01-2023 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | Dr. S. Muralidhar (Chief Justice), M.S. Raman (Judge) |
| Court | Orissa High Court |
| Bench | Dr. S. Muralidhar (Chief Justice), M.S. Raman (Judge) |
| Precedent Value | Binding on all subordinate courts in Odisha; high persuasive value for similar statutory contexts |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms previously established orders of Orissa High Court (Division Bench and Single Judge decisions from 2013–2021); follows Supreme Court principles |
| Type of Law | Land law / Administrative law / Revenue law |
| Questions of Law | Whether ASOs under the OSS Act can exercise suo motu powers to revisit, override, or refuse mutation based on lease validity already decided under the OGLS Act. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The jurisdiction of Assistant Settlement Officers under the OSS Act is limited to recording entries as per the valid lease orders passed under the OGLS Act. The ASO cannot review, override, or cancel the validity of leases already adjudicated by competent authorities under the OGLS Act. Any such action by ASOs or appellate authorities under the OSS Act is without jurisdiction and void. The Court emphasized that statutory powers must be exercised strictly in the manner provided by law, and authorities cannot encroach upon the domain assigned to others by statute. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioners’ lands in Khurda District were originally leased under OGLS Act. After repeated scrutiny, relevant competent authorities under OGLS Act, including ADMs, upheld the lease validity. However, ASOs under the OSS Act, at the mutation stage or recording of rights, exercised purported suo motu power to refuse to record the petitioners as owners and ordered that the land be recorded in the Government’s name. This triggered a fresh round of litigation after prior remand and confirmation of leases by revenue authorities. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts, revenue, and settlement authorities in Odisha |
| Persuasive For | Other State High Courts and authorities interpreting analogous land and mutation statutes |
| Follows | Numerous Orissa High Court Division Bench and Single Judge decisions; Supreme Court administrative law decisions |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that Assistant Settlement Officers have no jurisdiction to override, question, or cancel lease validity already adjudicated by competent authorities under the OGLS Act.
- Orders by ASOs contrary to valid lease orders, even if leading to final published RORs, are without jurisdiction and void.
- Court declines to remand matters for further scrutiny where lease validity has already undergone two or more rounds of adjudication; instead, directs direct implementation of lease orders in ROR.
- Clarifies the proper statutory remedy depending on whether final ROR has been published (Section 12-A or Section 15(b) of OSS Act).
- Settlement authorities are strictly bound by the prescribed statutory procedure and cannot encroach on powers not conferred by the OSS Act.
- Government has adequate remedy under Section 3-B of OGLS Act for resumption or recovery of land, and should use that procedure if it disputes the leasehold.
- Even final ROR entries made contrary to lease orders can be set aside on jurisdictional grounds.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The central issue is the exercise of jurisdiction by ASOs under the OSS Act in overriding or revisiting the lease validity already determined under the OGLS Act by competent authorities such as the ADM.
- The Court reviews a series of earlier Division Bench and Single Judge decisions of the Orissa High Court, consistently holding that ASOs are bound by the lease orders passed by authorities under the OGLS Act.
- Statutory interpretation principles are drawn from Supreme Court judgments (Taylor v. Taylor, Nazir Ahmad, Babu Verghese, Captain Sube Singh), emphasizing that statutory power must be exercised in the prescribed manner only, and not otherwise.
- The Court finds that the ASOs acted without jurisdiction and that any act beyond recording the settled lease in the ROR amounts to usurping the powers reserved to authorities under OGLS Act.
- Even entries in finally published ROR done in breach of this principle are declared void and must be corrected.
- The proper recourse for the Government in case it seeks to recover land is through the mechanism of the OGLS Act (e.g., Section 3-B), not via the OSS Act.
- Court directs direct implementation of lease orders in ROR, declining further remand to avoid endless litigation.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioners:
- ASO acted without jurisdiction in refusing to record their names in ROR, despite valid lease orders in their favour under the OGLS Act.
- Lease validity already stood adjudicated and confirmed by competent authorities several times and cannot be reopened by ASO.
- Actions by ASO amount to circumvention of the statutory process and prior High Court orders.
Respondent (State):
- Cited general direction issued by the Court in OJC No.9449 of 1993 to scrutinize irregular lease cases in Bhubaneswar area.
- Sought to justify review of lease validity at mutation stage by ASO, on ground of potential irregularities or Government title.
Factual Background
The cases concern petitioners who obtained leases of land under the OGLS Act in Khurda District, many through registered sale deeds. The leases were subjected to scrutiny by authorities after earlier High Court directions; in several cases, the competent officers (ADM) upheld lease validity. Despite this, while seeking mutation/recording in the ROR under the OSS Act, ASOs exercised supposed suo motu powers to refuse mutation and record land in the name of Government, leading to fresh rounds of litigation.
Statutory Analysis
- Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 (OSS Act): Jurisdiction of ASOs is limited to recording as per the draft ROR and finalizing records; no power to review or cancel lease validity determined by other statutes.
- Section 12: Draft publication of ROR.
- Section 12-A: Appeal provision.
- Section 13: Final publication lends presumption of correctness; remedy lies in revision under Section 15(b).
- Section 15(b): Revision to Board of Revenue.
- Orissa Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 (OGLS Act): Grants substantive power to lease and, if required, resume land (including Section 3-B for resumption and penalty).
- Court relies on Supreme Court and High Court precedents holding that statutory powers can be exercised only in the manner and by the authority specified.
- No “reading in” or “reading down” of powers; explicit limits recognized.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinion reported in the judgment. Decision is unanimous.
Procedural Innovations
- Court declines to remand matters to ASO once again for further proceedings, noting that repeated litigation is unnecessary when legal position is settled.
- Directs immediate correction of RORs as per valid lease orders, with a deadline for compliance.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Judgment systematically affirms and applies existing High Court and Supreme Court principles regarding statutory jurisdiction and revenue authority powers.