Authorities Possess Inherent Power to Recall Settlement Orders Obtained via Misrepresentation of Encroachment Facts

The Petitioner and her late husband applied for the settlement of government land (Ac.0.04 decimals) in Khordha for homestead purposes, claiming to be landless persons

Based on a Revenue Inspector’s report stating the land was "encroachment free," the Additional Tahasildar recommended settlement, which the Sub-Collector confirmed on 15.07.2017

Two years later, following public objections, the Sub-Collector reopened the case and discovered that an Encroachment Case (No. 125 of 2012) had been pending against the Petitioner at the time of the initial report

Consequently, the Sub-Collector recalled the settlement order on 11.06.2019

The Petitioner challenged this before the Collector, Khordha, who dismissed the revision on 24.10.2025, suggesting the Petitioner seek regularisation under the Encroachment Act instead

1. Whether the Sub-Collector had the jurisdiction to suo motu recall a prior settlement order after a lapse of two years

2. Whether the settlement of government land can be upheld if the application and supporting field reports suppressed the fact of existing unauthorised encroachment

The court applied the provisions of the Odisha Government Land Settlement Act, 1962, and the Basundhara Settlement Scheme regarding the settlement of land for landless persons

The court invoked the inherent power of a Court or Authority to recall its own order to prevent a "flagrant miscarriage of justice" when an order is obtained through the suppression of material facts or shows serious illegality on the face of the record

It further referenced the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972, as the appropriate channel for regularising unauthorised occupation

The Court found that the initial settlement was predicated on a misleading report by the Revenue Inspector, which claimed the land was "encroachment free" despite a pending encroachment case against the Petitioner

The Court highlighted that while the Petitioner might be eligible for land as a landless person under the Basundhara Scheme, she is not entitled to settle specific government land by encroaching upon it and then seeking settlement based on that possession through the suppression of facts

The Court reasoned that since the Sub-Collector had originally confirmed the settlement "mechanically" without noticing the irregularities, the discovery of such serious illegalities justified the exercise of inherent power to recall the order

The writ petition was dismissed, upholding the orders of the Sub-Collector and Collector; however, this does not debar the Petitioner from seeking relief or regularisation under the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972