Pramod Chandra Rath vs Commissioner, Land Records and Settlement, Cuttack & Anr.

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

The petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 27.11.2024 passed by the Commissioner, Land Records and Settlement, Odisha, in R.P. No.168 of 2022 under Section 15(b) of the OSS Act, 1958, whereby the revision petition filed by him challenging the recording of the case land under Government Abada Jogya Anabadi in Khata No.1728 was dismissed.

The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the petitioner claims to have purchased Ac.2.50 dec. of land appertaining to Sabik Plot No.1696 under Sabik Khata No.416/11 from the members of the Baral family by RSD No.2411 dated 03.08.2005. He further claims to have purchased Ac.0.04 dec. of land appertaining to Sabik Plots Nos.1671 and 1672 under Sabik Khata No.667 from Keshab Pradhan by RSD No.2410 dated 29.07.2005. During the subsequent settlement operation, a draft ROR was prepared in favour of the petitioner under Khata No.1613/Ka for a total area of Ac.2.57 dec. The draft ROR reflected Hal Plot No.2524/7822 corresponding to Sabik Plot No.1696 (part), measuring Ac.2.50 dec.; Hal Plot No.2522 corresponding to Sabik Plot No.1672 (part), measuring Ac.0.04 dec.; and Hal Plot No.2523 corresponding to Sabik Plot No.1673 (part), measuring Ac.0.03 dec., all proposed to be recorded in the petitioner's name in Stitiban status. However, in the final ROR, Hal Plot No.2523, measuring Ac.0.03 dec., was recorded in the petitioner's name under Khata No.891, whereas Hal Plot No.2524/7822, measuring Ac.2.50 dec. and Hal Plot No.2522, measuring Ac.0.63 dec., were recorded under Government Abada Jogya Anabadi in Khata No.1728.

Being aggrieved by the entry in the ROR, the petitioner filed R.P. Case No.168 of 2022 under Section 15(b) of the OSS Act, 1958, before the Commissioner, Land Records and Settlement, Odisha, seeking correction of the ROR. By order dated 27.11.2024, the Commissioner dismissed the revision petition, holding, inter alia, that Sabik Plot No.1696 (part) was recorded as Anabadi, that the basis of Jamabandi No.447 in favour of Nisakar Baral and Ganesh Baral had not been established and discrepancies existed regarding the Sabik–Hal plot correlation and the identity of the land covered by the petitioner's sale deeds. Said order is challenged in this writ petition.

Counter affidavit has been filed by the Tahasildar, Dharmasala stating that the petitioner failed to establish the flow of title from the original recorded tenants to his vendors. It is stated that the genealogy of the Pradhan family has not been clearly established and the Tahasildar's report dated 23.05.2023 merely confirms the petitioner's possession over the disputed land without certifying the correctness of the sale transactions or the Hal–Sabik plot correlation. It is also stated that Sabik Plot No.1696 under Khata No.416 was recorded as Anabadi and the petitioner has not produced documents establishing the basis of Jamabandi No.447 in favour of Nisakar Baral and Ganesh Baral.

Heard Mr. G.M Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.N Patnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

Mr. Rath would argue that the impugned order has been passed without proper appreciation of the settlement records and the sequence of events leading to the creation of Hal Plot No.2524/7822. He submits that the petitioner purchased Ac.2.50 dec. of land vide RSD No.2411 dated 03.08.2005, forming part of the original Hal Plot No.2524, measuring Ac.2.910 dec. Subsequently, in Objection Case No.1846, the settlement authority carved out Hal Plot No.2524/7822 corresponding to the purchased portion of Sabik Plot No.1696 and proposed to record the petitioner's name in the draft ROR. Therefore, the fact that the sale deed referred to Plot No.2524 and not the subsequently created Plot No.2524/7822 could not have been a ground to reject the petitioner's claim without examining the order passed in the objection case and the settlement map and plot-correlation records. He also submits that the petitioner's claim in respect of Hal Plot No.2522, measuring Ac.0.04 dec., is based on RSD No.2410 dated 29.07.2005, executed by Keshab Pradhan in respect of land appertaining to Sabik Plot No.1672. Therefore, the Commissioner failed to distinguish between the two transactions and properly examine the relevant Sabik–Hal plot correlation, the draft ROR and the order passed in Objection Case No.1846 before upholding the final entry in favour of the State Government. Placing reliance on a decision reported in 2024 (II) OLR 941, he submits that the settlement authorities exercising jurisdiction under Section 15 of the OSS Act are competent to correct errors in settlement records and cannot decline to examine a claim for correction merely because the land has been recorded as forest land.

Per contra, Mr. Patnaik, submits that the Commissioner has rightly dismissed the revision petition as the petitioner failed to establish the flow of title from the original recorded tenants to his vendors. He argues that Sabik Plot No.1696 under Khata No.416 was recorded as Anabadi and the petitioner has not produced any material to establish the basis of Jamabandi No.447 in favour of Nisakar Baral and Ganesh Baral. He also submits that the Tahasildar's report dated 23.05.2023, confirming the petitioner's possession over the disputed land, does not establish his title or the validity of the sale transactions and the Sabik–Hal plot correlation. In the absence of material establishing the identity of the disputed land and the petitioner's entitlement to its recording in his name, no interference with the impugned order is warranted.

This Court, having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and upon perusal of the pleadings and the impugned order, finds that the question that arises for consideration is, whether the Commissioner, while exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 15(b) of the OSS Act, 1958 properly examined the relevant settlement records before rejecting the petitioner's claim for correction of the ROR in respect of the disputed land.

It is well settled that an entry in the ROR or a Jamabandi, by itself, does not confer title over the land in question. The jurisdiction of the Commissioner under Section 15(b) of the OSS Act is confined to examining the correctness of the entries in the settlement records and does not extend to adjudication of disputed questions of right, title and interest, which fall within the domain of the competent Civil Court.

In the present case, the petitioner claims to have purchased Ac.2.50 dec. of land appertaining to Sabik Plot No.1696 under Sabik Khata No.416/11 from members of the Baral family by registered Sale Deed No.2411 dated 03.08.2005. His case is that the purchased land formed part of the original Hal Plot No.2524, measuring Ac.2.910 dec., and subsequently, during the settlement operation, Hal Bata Plot No.2524/7822, measuring Ac.2.50 dec., was carved out in respect of the purchased portion. In this regard, the report dated 11.07.2024 submitted by the ASO (Judicial), Cuttack, observed in paragraph 8 of the impugned order, assumes significance, as it refers to the proceedings in Amin Report No.1846, pursuant to which the bata plot was to be cancelled from Hal Khata No.371 and recorded in favour of the petitioner in Stitiban status. The report, read with the draft ROR prepared under Khata No.1613/Ka, wherein Hal Plot No.2524/7822 was shown as corresponding to Sabik Plot No.1696 (part) and proposed to be recorded in the petitioner's name, constituted relevant material for determining the identity and correlation of the land covered under the sale deed. Therefore, the only difference between the original plot number mentioned in the sale deed and the subsequently assigned bata plot number could not, by itself, constitute a ground for rejecting the petitioner's claim without examining the proceedings in Amin Report No.1846, the plot index, subdivision records and settlement map. The Commissioner was required to verify the correlation of the plots with reference to the available settlement records and discrepancy before arriving at a conclusion.

So far as Hal Plot No.2522 is concerned, the petitioner claims to have purchased Ac.0.04 dec. of land appertaining to Sabik Plot No.1672 under Sabik Khata No.667 from Keshab Chandra Pradhan by RSD No.2410 dated 29.07.2005. This transaction is distinct from the transaction relating to Sabik Plot No.1696 and Hal Plot No.2524/7822 and, therefore, requires separate examination. The final ROR, however, records Hal Plot No.2522, measuring Ac.0.63 dec., under Government Abada Jogya Anabadi in Khata No.1728. The petitioner had placed materials before the Commissioner to show that his vendor, Keshab Pradhan, had valid title over the land as reflected in the Yadast and the petitioner had purchased a portion thereof under the aforesaid RSD. Further, said land had been proposed to be recorded in the petitioner's favour in the draft ROR. Therefore, the Commissioner was required to examine the relevant materials and correlation of the plots with reference to the available settlement records and discrepancy before arriving at a conclusion.

Another thing that this Court finds is that Commissioner has questioned the basis of Jamabandi No.447 in favour of Nisakar Baral and Ganesh Baral, observing that Sabik Plot No.1696 under Sabik Khata No.416 was recorded as Anabadi. In this regard, a distinction must be maintained between examining a Jamabandi as a relevant revenue record and adjudicating on its genuineness or validity. While the Settlement Authorities may examine the existence, contents and relevance of a Jamabandi, along with other settlement records, for determining the correctness of an ROR entry, they cannot dispute its genuineness, the source of the rights claimed thereunder or the title of the parties. Such disputed questions, where they require adjudication of civil rights, fall within the domain of the competent Civil Court.

Therefore, the petitioner’s claim could not be accepted only on the strength of Jamabandi No.447 nor could it be rejected solely on the ground that the basis of the Jamabandi had not been established, without examining the relevant settlement records viz-a-viz the prayer of the petitioner in correction of the ROR. The finding of the Commissioner that the petitioner failed to establish the flow of title from the original recorded tenants to his vendors must also be considered in the context of the limited revisional jurisdiction. The Commissioner was required to examine the available settlement records and determine the correctness of the impugned entries without adjudicating on the genuineness of the Jamabandi or the flow of title. Reference in this regard may be had judgment of this Court passed by the Division Bench in the case of Smt. Arati Mukherjee and others v. State of Odisha and Others¹.

In view of the foregoing discussion, the order dated 27.11.2024 passed by the Commissioner, Land Records and Settlement, Odisha, in R.P. Case No.168 of 2022 is hereby quashed. However, this Court is not inclined to direct recording of the disputed land in the petitioner's name at this stage, as the materials available on record are insufficient to grant such relief. Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the Commissioner for fresh consideration in accordance with law, after examining the relevant settlement records and affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties. The revision shall be disposed of within three months.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed in part.