The Orissa High Court categorically clarifies that Assistant Settlement Officers (ASOs) exercising powers under the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 cannot, even suo motu and at the draft Record of Rights stage, override or disregard lease orders passed by competent authorities under the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act, 1962. This judgment upholds consistent prior precedent and reinforces binding authority on all subordinate courts in Odisha, settling the limits of ASOs’ jurisdiction in revenue and land record matters.
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; Justice M.S. Raman |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | Not mentioned; both judges signed the judgment |
| Court | High Court of Orissa, Cuttack |
| Bench | Division Bench: Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Justice M.S. Raman |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority for subordinate courts in Odisha |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Land revenue and settlement—Interpretation of Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 and Orissa Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 |
| Questions of Law | Whether ASOs can exercise suo motu powers under the OSS Act to override or review lease orders passed by competent authorities under the OGLS Act at the stage of preliminary or draft publication of the Record of Rights. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The ASOs, acting under the OSS Act, have no jurisdiction to go behind, review, disregard, or override lease orders passed by the Additional District Magistrate (ADM) or competent authorities under the OGLS Act and related statutes. If a lease has not been cancelled or resumed by the proper authority under the OGLS Act, the ASO is bound to record the names of parties in the Record of Rights as per such lease orders or registered sale deeds. Exercise of “suo motu powers” by the ASOs to reverse or avoid such lease decisions is ultra vires, and all contrary orders are without jurisdiction. The government has adequate remedies under Section 3-B of the OGLS Act to recover land if appropriate, but cannot do so through the ASO’s settlement proceedings. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Where a statute prescribes an act to be done in a particular way, it must be done in that way or not at all. Entry, cancellation, or resumption of land under lease must be done according to the procedure of the OGLS Act. The ASO under the OSS Act cannot usurp the jurisdiction conferred on authorities under the OGLS Act. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | A series of writ petitions were filed by petitioners whose lands, mostly in or near Bhubaneswar, had been leased under the OGLS Act and whose names or those of their predecessors-in-interest were affirmed by the ADM or competent authority under the OGLS Act. During settlement operations, ASOs acting under the OSS Act, at the draft Record of Rights stage, refused to record the names of the petitioners as per registered sale deeds—purporting to exercise suo motu power and instead recording the Government as owner—often in disregard of previous ADM orders. Several such instances had already gone through multiple rounds of litigation. The Court found that ASOs’ decisions disregarding lease orders were ultra vires and without jurisdiction. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and authorities in Odisha, especially settlement authorities and land revenue officials. |
| Persuasive For | High Courts of other states dealing with analogous state statutes and land record/settlement authorities. |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Categorically clarifies that ASOs under the OSS Act are strictly bound by lease and mutation orders passed under the OGLS Act; they cannot override, review, or disregard such orders at the draft ROR stage or otherwise.
- Expressly holds that any such exercise of “suo motu” powers by ASOs is ultra vires and void ab initio.
- Even if final publication of the ROR took place on the basis of the ASOs’ ultra vires orders, all such entries favoring the Government are to be set aside, and petitioners’ names recorded as per valid lease and sale deeds.
- Reiterates availability of remedies for the State under Section 3-B of the OGLS Act for resumption and recovery of land, ensuring that the ASO’s role is strictly confined to recording rights, not adjudicating title.
- Reduces potential for repetitive/multiple rounds of litigation by directing rectification and declining to remand issues back to ASOs when the legal position is settled.
- Lawyers may cite this as binding precedent to challenge any “review” or overreaching by settlement officers that contradicts valid lease/mutation orders.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The High Court analyzed a large batch of petitions raising the recurring issue of whether ASOs under the OSS Act could disregard lease orders under the OGLS Act, specifically at the draft ROR (Record of Rights) stage, and record land in Government’s name instead.
- The Court cited a consistent line of prior decisions from Single and Division Benches of the High Court, holding that the ASOs are bound by the findings and orders of the ADM or competent authority under the OGLS Act with respect to lease validity and cannot inquire into or overrule those decisions.
- Specific reliance was placed on orders in Mrs. Sneha Mohanty v. State of Odisha and others, which held that unless a lease is cancelled or land resumed by due process under the OGLS Act, the settlement authorities (ASOs) have no jurisdiction to question the grant’s validity.
- The Court discussed Supreme Court precedents (e.g., Babu Verghese, Nazir Ahmad, Singhara Singh, Captain Sube Singh), reiterating the legal maxim that if a statute prescribes something to be done in a particular way, it must only be done in that manner.
- The Court rejected the State’s argument that earlier Court directions regarding scrutiny of leases granted the ASO power to independently review or override prior lease approvals, finding that the OGLS Act provides for resumption of land by following due process before the appropriate authority.
- Based on the above, the Court found all the ASOs’ orders declining to record petitioners’ names in the ROR on Government’s behalf (and corresponding appellate decisions) ultra vires, set them aside, and directed ASOs to record petitioners’ names accordingly.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioners:
- The ASO had no jurisdiction or authority to revisit or disregard lease orders affirmed by competent authority under the OGLS Act.
- Orders declining to record petitioners’ names in the ROR, despite valid registered sale deeds and previous lease confirmation, were contrary to law.
- The repeated interference by ASOs, including after multiple rounds of litigation, caused grave injustice.
- Requested direction to have their names recorded in the ROR as per lease and sale deeds.
Respondent (State):
- Some land leases were allegedly obtained by irregular means.
- Asserted that scrutiny and action on “irregular leases” were necessitated by prior High Court orders.
- Defended ASOs’ actions, referencing the need for Government to secure its interest in public land.
Factual Background
Several petitioners held or purchased land in the Bhubaneswar area that was originally leased under the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 (OGLS Act), and for which the validity of leases had been affirmed by the Additional District Magistrate (ADM) or equivalent competent authority. During the course of settlement operations under the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 (OSS Act), Assistant Settlement Officers (ASOs), while considering mutation applications and sometimes acting suo motu, refused to record the petitioners’ names in the draft Record of Rights (ROR), instead recording the Government’s name as owner. These refusals often disregarded previous court/ADM decisions. This litigation followed several previous rounds of related litigation, principally contesting the jurisdiction of the ASO in these circumstances.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment centers on the interplay between the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 (OSS Act) and the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 (OGLS Act).
- It explains that section 12 of the OSS Act concerns the publication of the draft ROR, section 13 the final publication, and section 12-A provides for appeals against certain orders.
- The Court strictly interprets the OSS Act as only permitting the settlement authorities to record factual status as per titles determined by competent authorities, not to review or override such titles.
- The OGLS Act is identified as the only statutory path for lease cancellation or resumption of Government land, notably via Section 3-B (resumption and penalty), with detailed procedure under related rules.
- The maxim “if the manner of doing an act is prescribed by statute, it must be done in that manner or not at all” per Supreme Court precedents, governs the demarcation of powers.
Procedural Innovations
- The Court, in light of two or more rounds of prior litigation over the same land and disputed lease entries, declines to remand the matter to the ASO for further proceedings, thus preventing repetitive litigation.
- Directs ASOs to carry out the rectification and record petitioners’ names in the ROR within a set time limit (eight weeks; all actions to be completed in four months).
- Makes clear that its order does not preclude the State from taking future lawful action for resumption or annulment under Section 3-B of the OGLS Act, but only after following due process under the correct statute.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The Court affirms and applies a well-settled line of prior Division Bench and Single Judge decisions, as well as Supreme Court authority, on the limits of settlement officers’ jurisdiction under the land revenue statutes of Odisha.