The Court has clarified that any challenge to the final Record of Rights (R.o.R) under Section 15(b) of the Odisha Survey and Settlement Act, 1958, filed beyond the statutory limitation period, cannot proceed on merits until the delay is first condoned by the Revisional Authority. This decision upholds existing legal procedure and is binding within Odisha, acting as precedent for all proceedings before subordinate authorities under the OSS Act.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP(C)/1781/2024 of SUBHASISH SAHOO Vs STATE OF ODISHA |
| CNR | ODHC010032532024 |
| Date of Registration | 27-01-2024 |
| Decision Date | 28-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA |
| Court | Orissa High Court |
| Precedent Value | Binding within jurisdiction of Orissa High Court; applicable to OSS Act proceedings |
| Type of Law | Procedural; Limitation – Revenue / Land Records |
| Questions of Law | Whether the Revisional Authority must decide on condonation of delay before hearing revision petitions on merits under Section 15(b) of OSS Act, 1958. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The court held that when a revision petition is filed under Section 15(b) of the OSS Act, 1958, beyond one year of publication of the final record of rights, it is the first duty of the Revisional Authority to decide on the point of limitation and pass necessary orders for condonation of delay before considering the case on merits. Issuing notice for merits hearing without first addressing limitation is contrary to law, and such notices are unsustainable. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The judgment is based upon a direct application of Section 15(b) of the OSS Act, 1958 and the principle that condonation of delay is a jurisdictional prerequisite when limitation is prescribed. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | A revision petition challenging the final R.o.R was filed after 35 years. The authority issued notices to petitioners for hearing on merits, without taking up the issue of limitation or condonation of delay as required by law. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate revenue authorities and tribunals in Odisha deciding petitions under the OSS Act, 1958 |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts addressing similar limitation issues in land revenue statutes |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Restates that no revision under Section 15(b) of the OSS Act, 1958, filed beyond limitation, can be decided on merits unless delay is expressly condoned.
- Notices for hearing revision petitions on merits are liable to be quashed if issued without prior decision on condonation of delay.
- Lawyers must ensure that, where a revision is filed out of time, an application for condonation is filed and decided before merits are addressed.
- Subordinate authorities must strictly adhere to the procedural mandate; failure to do so may vitiate all subsequent proceedings.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court analysed Section 15(b) of the OSS Act, 1958, which permits an aggrieved party to challenge the final R.o.R within one year of its publication.
- It was reiterated that if revision is filed beyond the prescribed one-year period, condonation of delay is a mandatory threshold issue.
- The Revisional Authority must pass a specific order either allowing or rejecting condonation before issuing merit notices.
- The Court found that in this case, the Revisional Authority wrongly issued notices for merits hearing without considering limitation, which is impermissible.
- Accordingly, the impugned notices were quashed and the Revisional Authority was directed to pass orders on limitation first.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Asserted the revision was filed after 35 years, grossly beyond limitation.
- Argued the Revisional Authority should first decide on condonation of delay, not proceed to merits.
- Submission that issuance of merit notice without condoning delay is contrary to law.
Factual Background
A writ petition was filed challenging the issuance of notices to the petitioners in a revision proceeding (R.P. No.261 of 2021) before the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Cuttack. The underlying revision had been initiated under Section 15(b) of the OSS Act, 1958, seeking to challenge the final R.o.R, which had been published 35 years earlier. The Revisional Authority issued notices for merits hearing without addressing limitation or condonation of delay, leading to the present challenge.
Statutory Analysis
Section 15(b) of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 provides a one-year period for challenging the final record of rights. The judgment emphasises that when a revision is presented after limitation, the authority must first determine condonation of delay before considering substantive issues on merits.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – The decision affirms and reinforces the statutory mandate under Section 15(b) of the OSS Act, 1958, as previously established.