Mihir Kumar Biswal & Another vs Commissioner-Cum-Secretary Revenue & Disaster Management, Odisha, Bhubaneswar & Ors.

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. The petitioners seek to challenge the action of the Opposite Party No.3-Tahasildar, Banarpal in deleting the land measuring Ac.0.25 decimals appertaining to Plot No.104/1117 under Khata No.153/356 of Mouza-Golabandha from their ROR and recording it in name of IDCO and the consequential action initiated for their eviction from the land and removal of the structures standing thereon. The petitioners also seek a direction to the Opposite Parties not to interfere with their possession over the case land and to restore the land in their favour.

The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the petitioners claim to have purchased the case land measuring Ac.0.25 decimals from one Madhusudan Pradhan by virtue of RSD No.147 dated 12.01.2005. Said land appertains to Plot No.104/1117 under Khata No.153/356 of Mouza-Golabandha, corresponding to Sabik Khata No.124. It is stated that the land was mutated in their favour in Mutation Case No.825 of 2021 and they continued to remain in possession thereof. They constructed an asbestos-roofed house over the land and have been paying rent to the Tahasildar, Banarpal, the rent having been accepted up to 10.01.2024. It is also stated that while they were in possession of the case land, the entry relating to the land was deleted from their ROR without any notice to them or initiation of any proceeding. They came to know of such deletion from the website on 06.04.2025 and thereafter submitted a representation dated 07.04.2025 before the concerned authorities. It is further stated that despite pendency of the writ petition and the interim order dated 03.05.2025 directing maintenance of status quo in respect of the case land, the Tahasildar issued Notice No.4134 dated 11.06.2025 directing them to vacate the land and threatening removal of the structures with police assistance.

Such being the position the petitioner has filed this present writ petition with the following prayer:-

Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 have filed a counter affidavit stating that the case land had already been acquired by IDCO through the Special Land Acquisition Officer (General), Collectorate, Angul. It is their specific case that upon receipt of the revised rent abatement statement from the Special Land Acquisition Officer vide letter No.915 dated 24.09.2024, the ROR in respect of the case land was corrected in the name of IDCO. It is further stated that, prior to such correction, the land stood recorded in the names of the petitioners and rent had been paid up to the year 2023-24. It is also stated that on receipt of a report regarding unauthorised construction over the case land and upon an enquiry conducted by the RI, it was found that the petitioners had constructed two separate structures having asbestos roofs and brick walls over the land. Accordingly, eviction proceedings were initiated and Notice No.2504 dated 21.04.2025 was issued to the petitioners.

Opposite Party No.5-NALCO has also filed counter affidavit supporting the stand of the State. According to Opposite Party No.5, the case land formed part of the total Ac.19.38 decimals acquired by IDCO for NALCO in L.A. Case No.03 of 2006. It is stated that, in respect of the petitioners' Ac.0.25 decimals in Plot No.104/1117, compensation was awarded vide Award No.9 and as the petitioners did not receive the awarded amount, the same was deposited before the Civil Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It is further stated that possession of the acquired land was handed over to NALCO on 25.01.2019 and thereafter the ROR was corrected in favour of IDCO, Bhubaneswar (for NALCO) in Rent Abatement Case No.24 of 2023. According to Opposite Party No.5, the subsequent construction raised by the petitioners over the acquired land was unauthorised and steps were accordingly taken for removal of the structures and eviction of the petitioners. It is also stated that the petitioners have suppressed the material fact of acquisition of the case land and the consequential recording of the land in favour of IDCO.

Heard Mr. T. Barik, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. S.N. Patnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State and Mr. Bigyan Kumar Sharma, learned Senior Counsel with Mr. B.R. Behera, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.5 (NALCO).

Mr. T. Barik would argue that the petitioners are the recorded tenants in respect of the case land by virtue of the RSD dated 12.01.2005 and subsequent mutation in their favour in Mutation Case No.825 of 2021. They have been in possession of the land, constructed a residential house thereon and paid rent to the revenue authorities. He argues that the land was deleted from their ROR and recorded in favour of IDCO without notice or affording them an opportunity of hearing and that they came to know of such correction only on 06.04.2025. He also contends that despite the petitioners' representation dated 07.04.2025, the Tahasildar initiated eviction and removal of the structures over the case land. He submits that such action is in violation of natural justice. He also submits that notice dated 11.06.2025 and the proposed eviction with police assistance were in violation of the status quo order dated 03.05.2025 passed by this Court.

Per Contra, Mr. Patnaik submits that the action for eviction was initiated only after the RI conducted an enquiry and found that the petitioners had raised unauthorised structures over the acquired land. He submits that the petitioners cannot seek protection of an unauthorised occupation over land which had already been acquired and handed over to the beneficiary. He also submits that the petitioners' grievance regarding the acquisition itself ought to be raised before the competent authority and that the present writ petition is not maintainable for seeking restoration of the ROR when the acquisition has itself not been challenged.

Mr. Sharma supports the submission of Mr. Pattnaik and submits that the case land forms part of the land acquired in L.A. Case No.03 of 2006 for the benefit of NALCO. He submits that Award No.9 was passed in respect of the petitioners' Ac.0.25 decimals and as the awarded compensation was not received by them, the same was deposited before the Civil Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. He also submits that possession of the acquired land was handed over to NALCO on 25.01.2019 and the subsequent mutation in favour of the petitioners in 2021 or acceptance of rent thereafter cannot confer any right or title upon them in respect of the acquired land. It is argued by Mr. Behera that the petitioners have deliberately suppressed the material fact of acquisition of the case land and the subsequent recording of the land in favour of IDCO. He contends that the writ petition has been filed by projecting the dispute merely as an unauthorised correction of the ROR, whereas the underlying acquisition had already taken place much earlier. He forcefully argues that as the petitioners have not disclosed the material facts it disentitles to any equitable relief. He also submits that the continued occupation of the acquired land and the structures standing thereon are causing serious prejudice to the Railway Siding Project of NALCO affecting thereby larger public interest.

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties at length and on careful perusal of the pleadings and materials on record, the materials placed on record and the report submitted by the Collector, Angul pursuant to order dated 22.04.2026 passed by in this case, this Court finds that the question for consideration is, whether the case land measuring Ac.0.25 decimals appertaining to Plot No.104/1117 under Khata No.153/356 of Mouza-Golabandha was acquired in the land acquisition proceeding initiated in L.A. Case No.03 of 2006 and, if so, whether the subsequent correction of the ROR in Rent Abatement Case No.24 of 2023 can be interfered with on the ground that the petitioners were not issued notice in the proceeding.

Be it noted that on the face of mutually conflicting submissions made by the parties, this Court by its order dated 22.04.026 directed the Collector, Angul to conduct a factual enquiry and submit a comprehensive report. Accordingly, the Collector has enquired into the matter, heard all necessary parties and submitted his report stated as order, to this Court.

From the report of the Collector and the connected records placed by the Opposite parties, it appears that the entire area of Ac.0.50 decimals appertaining to Plot No.104/1117 under Holding No.124 of Mouza-Golabandha formed part of the total Ac.19.38 decimals of private agricultural land acquired in L.A. Case No.03 of 2006. The acquisition proceedings were initiated by issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 vide Gazette Notification No.14865 dated 21.04.2006. The subsequent declaration under Section 6(1) was made vide Notification No.17473 dated 05.05.2007 and the same was published in the village on 14.05.2007. Therefore, the claim of the petitioners that the case land was never acquired is not borne out from the records.

The records further show that notices relating to payment of the awarded compensation were issued to the petitioners on 25.05.2009 and again on 13.08.2012. The report of the Land Acquisition Officer also shows that the petitioners refused to receive the notices and did not come forward to receive the compensation. Since the awarded compensation was not received by the petitioners, the amount of Rs.92,253/- was deposited in the Civil Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 vide Challan No.383 dated 08.10.2012, which is reflected in the Cash Book for the year 2012-13.

Such being the position and the petitioners having not challenged the acquisition notification dated 21.04.2006, subsequent declaration, award passed in respect of their land or the deposit of compensation before the Civil Court, they obviously cannot challenge the foundation of the acquisition in the present writ petition. Rather, the writ petition is filed on the premise that the petitioners continue to be the owners of the land and the only illegality committed by the authorities was the subsequent deletion of their names from the ROR clearly suppressing the fact that the land in question has already been acquired.

In the above background, the subsequent mutation of the land in favour of the petitioners in Mutation Case No.825 of 2021 and the acceptance of rent thereafter cannot revive or confer any title which had already been divested by virtue of the acquisition proceedings under the relevant statute. Mutation or correction of revenue records is essentially fiscal in nature and does not create or extinguish title. Therefore, the fact that the petitioners' names continued to appear in the ROR for some period after acquisition or that rent was accepted from them, cannot by itself have the effect of undoing a completed acquisition.

This brings the Court to the principal ground of the petitioners that the correction of the ROR in Rent Abatement Case No.24 of 2023 was made without notice or opportunity of hearing. It is no doubt true that where an existing entry in the ROR is sought to be altered to the prejudice of a person, the requirement of following the applicable procedure and affording an opportunity of hearing cannot be disregarded. However, the above principle has to be examined in the factual matrix of the present case.

Even assuming, without deciding, that no separate notice was issued to the petitioners in the Rent Abatement Case No.24 of 2023, such omission cannot in the facts of the present case, confer upon the petitioners a right over the land which had already been acquired. The Rent Abatement Case was not the proceeding by which the petitioners' title was acquired or extinguished. The foundation of the change in the revenue record was the earlier land acquisition proceeding which culminated in an award in respect of the land claimed by the petitioners and in determination and deposit of compensation. The correction of the ROR was thus consequential to the acquisition and not the source of the acquisition.

In other words, the petitioners seek to challenge the consequence without assailing the cause. If the acquisition of the case land is valid and remains unchallenged which for the present, it is the correction of ROR in favour of the acquiring/project authority cannot be examined in isolation so as to restore the petitioners' names merely on the ground that notice in the subsequent rent abatement proceeding was not issued. Such a course would amount to permitting a revenue entry to prevail over a completed acquisition proceeding.

The Court also takes note of the conduct of the petitioners in approaching this Court. The fact of acquisition was never placed before this Court by the petitioners. Yet, the writ petition was filed stating that the Tahasildar had arbitrarily deleted the petitioners' land from their ROR and was attempting to interfere with their agricultural land, without disclosing that the land had been subjected to acquisition proceedings in L.A. Case No.03 of 2006 as evident from the Collector’s report.

In such circumstances, the plea raised by the petitioners amounts to suppression of facts. It is trite law that a person who does not approach the court with clean hands is not entitled to any relief. The following observations of the Supreme Court in Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India^{11.(2010) 14 SCC 38} are noteworthy: -

Thus, from a conspectus of the analysis of facts, law, contentions raised and discussions made, this Court finds that the case land was acquired in L.A. Case No.03 of 2006 with compensation determined and deposited in the Civil Court. The petitioners have not challenged the acquisition or the award. Hence, the subsequent correction of the ROR in Rent Abatement Case No.24 of 2023 cannot be considered in isolation or be a basis for restoring their names in the ROR. Further, the suppression of facts relating to the acquisition proceeding disentitles the petitioners to any relief.

For the foregoing reasons, therefore, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition, which is dismissed.