Revenue Record Corrections Pendente Lite are Subject to Final Adjudication by the Competent Civil Court

The Petitioner, Susama Das, purchased a piece of land via a registered sale deed on June 18, 2009, and subsequently had the Record of Rights (RoR) issued in her name

She filed Civil Suit No. 255 of 2022 for declaration of title and injunction, which remains pending

During the pendency of this suit, the Additional Tahasildar, Sambalpur, in RMC Case No. 82 of 2023, passed an order on March 4, 2024, directing the correction of the RoR in favor of the private opposite parties (Nos. 3–19)

The Petitioner challenged this order, alleging she was not served notice and that the revenue authority interfered in a sub-judice matter

The private opposite parties countered that their title was established by a 1971 decree (Title Suit No. 65/90 of 1958/60) and they obtained possession through a 2022 execution process

1. Whether the impugned order directing correction of the RoR is sustainable given the alleged non-issuance of notice to the Petitioner

2. Whether the High Court should interfere with a revenue department order while a civil suit for title regarding the same property is pending

the principle of audi alteram partem (the right to a fair hearing), noting that orders affecting rights should generally be preceded by notice

doctrine of lis pendens, where transfers made during the pendency of a suit cannot defeat an eventual decree

established jurisdictional hierarchy that the decision of a Civil Court on matters of title prevails over entries in revenue records, which are for fiscal purposes and do not conclusively determine ownership

The Court observed that the private opposite parties hold a decree from 1971 that has reached finality and was executed through the Court process in 2022

the Petitioner’s claim originates from a 2009 purchase, raising a dispute over whether her vendor had a valid title to convey—a question of fact that cannot be adjudicated in a writ jurisdiction

Regarding the procedural lapse of non-notice, the Court reasoned that since the Petitioner has already invoked the jurisdiction of the Senior Civil Judge in C.S. No. 255 of 2022, setting aside the revenue order would provide no practical benefit

The Court emphasized that revenue entries are subject to the final outcome of civil litigation; therefore, the pending civil suit is the appropriate forum to resolve the competing claims of ownership

The Court clarified that the decision of the Civil Court shall ultimately prevail over the revenue records

The Court dismissed the writ application, refusing to interfere with the Additional Tahasildar’s order