Kurunti Land Dispute: Orissa HC Upholds ROR-Correction Order For Sk. Madari, Gives Tahasildar One Month To Implement It

The dispute concerned land at Mouza Kurunti, including 1.50 acres claimed by Sk. Madari under a 1978 lease and by rival claimants through Dhobani Das.

In R.C. Case No. 182 of 2013, initiated under Section 37(1) of the OCH & PFL Act, the Additional Commissioner directed correction of the record of rights (ROR) in Madari’s favour on 9 July 2021. A writ challenge resulted in a remand for de novo hearing on 19 September 2022, with directions for the parties to appear and for the petitioners to pay costs; on 11 November 2022, the Additional Commissioner upheld the 2021 order after recording non-payment of costs and non-appearance. The proceeding was later restored, but the authority’s order of 3 May 2024 maintained the 11 November 2022 order.

Madari obtained a further direction on 13 February 2023 requiring the Tahasildar to work out the ROR-correction direction, subject to no further challenge or stay, and then brought contempt proceedings alleging non-compliance. The connected writ petitions challenged the subsequent orders, the Section 37(1) proceeding, and the original 2021 order.

W.P.(C) No. 26899 of 2017 was set aside for separate consideration and was not disposed of by this judgment.

Section 37(1) of the OCH & PFL Act confers supervisory jurisdiction, but its exercise must remain within statutory limits; withdrawal of an earlier revision under Section 36 does not, by itself, make a subsequent Section 37(1) proceeding jurisdictionally impermissible.

Niranjan Satapathy v. Benudhar Satapathy, W.P.(C) No. 20394 of 2009, was distinguished: it restricts resort to Section 37 where available statutory remedies have not been exhausted, but does not exclude Section 37 jurisdiction altogether.

The Court also referred to constructive res judicata and the policy against multiplicity of proceedings, while clarifying that res judicata did not strictly apply because the earlier challenge had not attained finality; it cited Central Bank of India v. Dragendra Singh Jadon, (2022) 8 SCC 378, on the bar against splitting challenges to the same cause of action.

The Court treated non-compliance with the remand conditions as relevant to the petitioners’ opportunity to be heard and applied waiver and locus principles to their challenges.

The Court read the 19 September 2022 judgment as remanding the matter subject to the petitioners’ compliance with the specified directions, including payment of costs. It considered that the petitioners’ failure to comply allowed the Additional Commissioner to uphold the earlier order, and found no infirmity in the orders of 11 November 2022 or 3 May 2024.

The restoration of the R.C. case did not, without a stay, displace the separate implementation direction made on 13 February 2023; the Tahasildar therefore remained obliged to act on that direction.

The Court rejected the Section 37(1) challenge because withdrawal of the Section 36 revision alone did not establish that the later proceeding was beyond jurisdiction; it also noted that the petitioners had not raised the objection before the Additional Commissioner and had not established their status as Dhobani Das’s legal heirs.

It rejected the State’s challenge as belated and inconsistent with the subsisting direction to implement the 2021 order.

In CONTC No. 4156 of 2023, it granted the Tahasildar one month to work out the ROR-correction direction and file a compliance affidavit, keeping the contempt proceeding pending until then.