The Orissa High Court reaffirmed that the Collector has no authority to entertain revision petitions under Rule 42-A of the Orissa Survey & Settlement Rules, 1962, for cancellation or correction of the finally published Record of Rights (R.o.R) after the statutory time period has expired; remedies instead lie under Section 15(b) before the Board of Revenue within one year, or a civil suit under Section 42 of the parent Act. This judgment upholds existing precedent and clarifies the exclusive route for challenging final R.o.R entries. The decision constitutes binding authority for all subordinate courts and revenue authorities in Odisha
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP(C)/21184/2023 of BASUDEV GHADEI Vs COLLECTOR, JAJPUR CNR ODHC010513642023 |
| Date of Registration | 06-07-2023 |
| Decision Date | 31-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA |
| Court | Orissa High Court |
| Bench | Single Judge |
| Precedent Value | Binding |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Pravakar Swain & Others v. Tahasildar, Aul & Another, 2012 (Supp.II) OLR 466 |
| Type of Law | Land Revenue / Survey & Settlement Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether a revision before the Collector under Rule 42-A of the OS&S Rules, 1962, for cancellation and correction of the finally published R.o.R, is maintainable when filed seven years after final publication. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Collector has no power to entertain or decide on a revision under Rule 42-A of the OS&S Rules, 1962, for cancellation or correction of a final R.o.R after the period for statutory remedies has expired. The appropriate remedies are a revision before the Board of Revenue within one year under Section 15(b), or a civil suit under Section 42 of the OS&S Act, 1958, within the prescribed period. Entertaining such revision by the Collector after seven years is without jurisdiction. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Pravakar Swain & Others v. Tahasildar, Aul & Another (2012 (Supp.II) OLR 466) |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Statutory bar on revision after final R.o.R and expiry of limitation period as per 2012 (Supp.II) OLR 466; the Board of Revenue/civil courts as proper authorities for such disputes post-publication. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The Settlement Authorities published the final R.o.R in the name of the petitioner in 2015. Seven years later, the Tahasildar filed a revision under Rule 42-A before the Collector, alleging the land was wrongly recorded in the petitioner’s name by fraud. The Collector ordered cancellation and correction of the R.o.R in favour of the Government, prompting the petitioner to challenge the jurisdiction and maintainability of such revision. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts, revenue, and settlement authorities in Odisha |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts dealing with analogous land revenue statutes or procedural provisions |
| Follows | Pravakar Swain & Others v. Tahasildar, Aul & Another (2012 (Supp.II) OLR 466) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reinforces that, post-final publication of R.o.R, the Collector cannot entertain revisions under Rule 42-A beyond the prescribed time and after due process has concluded.
- Clarifies that statutory remedies against a final R.o.R are limited to (i) revision before the Board of Revenue within one year (Section 15(b)); and (ii) civil suit under Section 42 of the Act.
- Any attempt by the Collector to entertain such revisions after the legal time period or outside his jurisdiction is liable to be quashed.
- Lawyers should challenge revisions/cancellation proceedings before the Collector if initiated long after final R.o.R publication.
- Cites binding precedent (2012 (Supp.II) OLR 466) and may be used as direct authority in similar disputes under Odisha land revenue law.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court framed the issue: whether the Collector, under Rule 42-A of the OS&S Rules, 1962, could entertain a revision against a final R.o.R published over seven years ago.
- Cited Pravakar Swain & Others v. Tahasildar, Aul & Another (2012 (Supp.II) OLR 466), which held that remedies against erroneous final R.o.R entries can only be sought (a) via revision before the Board of Revenue within one year under Section 15(b); or (b) by filing a civil suit under Section 42.
- Ruled that the Tahasildar did not utilize the lawful remedies within the prescribed time and therefore, the Collector’s exercise of jurisdiction via Rule 42-A was illegal and unsustainable.
- Stated that the Collector’s order was passed in excess of jurisdiction, lacking any legal authority for correction/cancellation after final publication and expiry of challenge periods under the Act and Rules.
- Accordingly, quashed the Collector’s order and disposed of the writ petition.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- The Collector had no power or jurisdiction to entertain the revision after seven years of final R.o.R publication.
- Remedies exclusively lie under Section 15(b) and Section 42 of the parent Act; Collector’s jurisdiction is barred in such circumstances.
Respondent (State):
- Alleged that the recording in the petitioner’s name was fraudulent and overlooked government interest.
- Sought cancellation and correction of the R.o.R in favour of the Government.
Factual Background
The Settlement Authorities published the final R.o.R in the petitioner’s name in 2015 under “Sthitiban” status for Mouza-Banpur, Plot 22. Seven years later, the Tahasildar filed a revision before the Collector under Rule 42-A alleging the land was government land fraudulently recorded to the petitioner. The Collector ordered correction and recording the land under government khata, but the petitioner challenged this order as being without jurisdiction.
Statutory Analysis
- Interpreted Rule 42-A of the Orissa Survey & Settlement Rules, 1962: found that the Collector lacks jurisdiction for such revisions once the R.o.R is finally published and statutory remedies have lapsed.
- Referenced Section 15(b) of the OS&S Act, 1958: Revision to the Board of Revenue must be filed within one year of R.o.R publication.
- Referenced Section 42 of the Act: Alternative remedy by way of civil suit within the relevant limitation period.
- No authority for Collector to entertain revision for final R.o.R after expiry of these periods.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
None noted in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – When existing law is affirmed.