PRAMOD CHANDRA RATH vs COMMISSIONER, LAND RECORDS AND SETTLEMENT, CUTTACK

WP(C)/33375/2025
ODHC010836382025
2026:OHC:211

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C). Nos.33375 of 2025
CNR No.ODHC010836382025
(An application under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of
India)


AFR Pramod Chandra Rath ....... Petitioner

- Versus-

Commissioner, Land Records
and Settlement, Cuttack
& another. ....... Opposite Parties

_______________________________________________________
For Petitioner : M/s. Gouri Mohan Rath, S.S.Padhy,
P.Mohanty, S.Mohapatra,
B.Pattnaik, & M.A.Bohidar, Advocates

For Opp. Parties : Mr. S.N. Patnaik
Addl. Government Advocate

CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
JUDGMENT
16.10.2026

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
1 11
Page of

case land under Government Abada Jogya Anabadi in Khata
No.1728 was dismissed.

2. 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
2 11
Page of

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.
3. 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
3 11
Page of

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

5. 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
4 11
Page of

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.

6. 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
5 11
Page of

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.
7. 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.
6 11
Page of

8. 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.
9. 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
7 11
Page of

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.

10. 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
8 11
Page of

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.
11. 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
9 11
Page of

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.

12. 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
10 11
Page of

Bench in the case of Smt. Arati Mukherjee and others v.
1
State of Odisha and Others .

13. 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.
14. In the result, the writ petition is allowed in part.



…..……….…………….
Sashikanta Mishra
Judge


Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
th
The 16 October, 2026/A.K. Rana, P.A.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: AJAYA KUMAR RANA
Designation: P.A.
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 16-Oct-2026 18:44:53

1
O.J.C. No.81 of 1991 decided on 22.06.1994
11 11
Page of