IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.21539 of 2017
Umakanta Patnaik ..... Petitioner
Mr. B.N. Tripathy, Advocate
-versus-
Addl. Commissioner of ..... Opposite Parties
Settlement And Consolidation, Mr. M.K. Balabantaray, AGA
Berhampur & Ors.
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
30.09.2024
Order No.05
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr. B.N. Tripathy, learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioner and Mr. M.K. Balabantaray, learned Addl. Govt.
Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties.
3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia challenging
order dtd.21.12.2016 so passed by the Addl. Commissioner,
Settlement & Consolidation, Berhampur-Opp. Party No. 1 in SRP
No. 21 of 2014 under Annexure-6. The said application was filed
purportedly under Sec. 15(b) of the Orissa Survey & Settlement
Act, 1958, seeking correction of the ROR so published in the name
of the Govt.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that even though
the land in question was settled by the OEA Authority and it was
sent for confirmation to the Board of Revenue vide letter
dtd.26.02.1973 under Annexure-5, but on the face of such
communication, the land since was recorded in the name of the
Govt., the Revision was filed seeking correction of the ROR. But
the Revisional Authority without proper appreciation of the order
Page 1 of 2.
passed by the OEA Authority rejected the revision vide the
impugned order. It is accordingly contended that the impugned
order is not sustainable in the eye of law.
5. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on instruction on the other hand
contended that since the order passed by the OEA Authority as
found from Annexure-5 has only been sent to the Board of Revenue
for confirmation and there is no document available in the case
record showing such confirmation being made by the Board of
Revenue, in absence of the same, the Revisional Authority has
rightly rejected the claim of the Petitioner to correct the ROR which
has been rightly recorded in the name of the Govt.
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and
considering the submissions made, this Court finds that even though
as contended, OEA Authority passed an order in favour of the
Petitioner, but the same was forwarded to the Board of Revenue for
confirmation vide letter dtd.26.02.1973 under Annexure-5. No
document was placed either before the Revisional Court or before
this Court, showing that such confirmation has been made by the
Board of Revenue.
6.1. Therefore, in absence of any confirmation to the order passed
by the OEA Authority, this Court finds no illegality and irregularity
with the impugned order dtd.21.12.2016 so passed in SRP No. 21 of
2014. While not inclined to interfere with the same, this Court
grants liberty to the Petitioner to raise his grievance with regard to
confirmation of the order passed by OEA Authority, if any.
Signature Not Verified
7. With the aforesaid liberty, the writ petition is disposed of.
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA
Reason: Authentication
(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 03-Oct-2024 11:09:03
Judge
Sneha
Page 2 of 2.