Orissa High Court reaffirms that, after final publication of the Record of Rights (R.o.R.), the Collector lacks jurisdiction under Rule 42-A of the Odisha Survey & Settlement Rules, 1962, to entertain revisional proceedings for cancellation/correction; parties must seek remedy under Section 15(b) (Board of Revenue) within one year or via civil suit under Section 42 of the OS&S Act, 1958. The precedent confirms and restates settled law, functioning as binding authority for subordinate courts and revenue authorities in Orissa, with direct implications for land administration and property disputes.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP(C)/21187/2023 of RAMA SUNDARI SAMAL Vs COLLECTOR, JAJPUR |
| CNR | ODHC010513672023 |
| 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 (MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA) |
| Precedent Value | Binding Authority for subordinate courts and revenue authorities |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms prior precedent (2012 (Supp.II) OLR 466) |
| Type of Law | Land and Revenue Law (Odisha Survey & Settlement Act, 1958; Rules, 1962) |
| Questions of Law | Whether the Collector has power to entertain revision years after final R.o.R publication under Rule 42-A of OS&S Rules, 1962. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
Once the final R.o.R of the land has been published, the Collector cannot exercise revisional jurisdiction under Rule 42-A of the OS&S Rules, 1962, to cancel or correct the entry. The appropriate remedy for aggrieved parties is a revision before the Board of Revenue under Section 15(b) of the Act within one year, or a civil suit under Section 42 of the Act. Exercising revisional power by the Collector after this period and through an incorrect forum is without jurisdiction and unsustainable in law. This principle affirms the ratio laid down in 2012 (Supp.II) OLR 466. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Sri Pravakar Swain & Others Vs. Tahasildar, Aul & Another, 2012 (Supp.II) OLR 466 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Legal remedies for erroneous final R.o.R entries are strictly governed by Sections 15, 25 & 42 of the OS&S Act, 1958. Collector’s jurisdiction under Rule 42-A does not extend to revising finally published R.o.R entries years later. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Settlement authorities published the final R.o.R in petitioner’s name in 2015. Seven years later, the Tahasildar filed a revision before the Collector under Rule 42-A to cancel this entry and record the land in the Government’s name. The Collector allowed the revision, finding the entry fraudulent. Petitioner contended Collector had no such power. The court found Collector lacked jurisdiction for such revision after final publication; correct remedy was Board of Revenue or civil suit within prescribed timelines. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and revenue authorities in Orissa |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts dealing with similar land record disputes |
| Follows | Sri Pravakar Swain & Others Vs. Tahasildar, Aul & Another, 2012 (Supp.II) OLR 466 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Explicit reaffirmation that the Collector cannot exercise revisional jurisdiction under Rule 42-A of the OS&S Rules, 1962, to alter/cancel final R.o.R entries years after publication.
- The only legal remedies for erroneous final R.o.R entries are: (a) Revision before the Board of Revenue under Section 15(b) of the OS&S Act within one year; (b) Civil suit under Section 42 of the OS&S Act.
- Improper forum and belated remedy before the Collector is not maintainable and is without jurisdiction.
- Lawyers should challenge such post-publication revisions before the Collector citing this binding precedent.
- The limitation for seeking redressal against final R.o.R entries is strictly enforced.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court identified the crux: whether, years after final publication of R.o.R, the Collector could entertain a revision for cancellation/correction under Rule 42-A.
- It relied on the precedent set in Sri Pravakar Swain & Others Vs. Tahasildar, Aul & Another (2012 (Supp.II) OLR 466), which holds that, after final publication, legal remedies are a revision petition to the Board of Revenue within one year or a civil suit.
- The Collector’s powers under Rule 42-A do not extend to revising or cancelling final entries after such publication; such jurisdiction is not vested under the law.
- Since the Tahasildar did not pursue the prescribed remedies, the Collector’s exercise of jurisdiction was ultra vires and unsustainable in law.
- The court allowed the writ, quashing the Collector’s impugned order.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- Collector lacked power, authority, or jurisdiction under law to entertain the Tahasildar’s revision seeking cancellation of the finally published R.o.R.
- Seven years had lapsed since final publication; proper remedy was not revision before the Collector.
- Sought quashing of the Collector’s order as being without jurisdiction.
Respondent (State & Tahasildar):
- Supported the Collector’s order for cancellation and correction, arguing the entry was fraudulently obtained and government interest overlooked.
Factual Background
The land in question was recorded in the petitioner’s name under ‘Sthitiban’ status in the final Record of Rights (R.o.R.) published by the Settlement Authorities in 2015. In 2022, seven years later, the Tahasildar initiated a revision case before the Collector under Rule 42-A of the OS&S Rules, 1962, seeking to cancel the R.o.R. in the petitioner’s name and record it as government land, alleging it was originally ‘Anabadi Khata’. The Collector allowed the revision and ordered cancellation. The petitioner contested the Collector’s jurisdiction to entertain such revision at that stage.
Statutory Analysis
- The court discussed Rule 42-A of the OS&S Rules, 1962, and its applicability.
- It interpreted Section 15(b) of the OS&S Act, 1958, providing for revision before the Board of Revenue within one year of R.o.R publication.
- Section 42 of the OS&S Act, 1958, was referenced as providing for a civil suit to challenge the final R.o.R.
- The judgment construed revisional jurisdiction narrowly, restricting Collector’s power to post-publication revisions.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinion is recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations detailed in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The Court affirms established law regarding limitations on Collector’s jurisdiction after final R.o.R publication.