Settlement authorities must examine settlement records but cannot adjudicate title or a Jamabandi’s genuineness.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Commissioner, exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 15(b) of the OSS Act, properly examined the relevant settlement records before rejecting the petitioner’s claim for correction of the ROR.

The court held

The Court held that the Commissioner had not properly examined the relevant settlement records within the limits of Section 15(b) jurisdiction.

It also directed

It quashed the order dated 27 November 2024 and remitted the revision for fresh consideration, with an opportunity of hearing to the parties and directions to examine the relevant records in accordance with law. The revision was to be disposed of within three months; the Court did not direct that the land be recorded in the petitioner’s name.

The writ petition was allowed in part.

01Facts

The petitioner claimed to have purchased Ac.2.50 dec. appertaining to Sabik Plot No.1696 from members of the Baral family and Ac.0.04 dec. appertaining to Sabik Plot No.1672 from Keshab Pradhan under two registered sale deeds executed in 2005.

pp. 2, 4–5

Although the draft Record of Rights (ROR) proposed recording the relevant land in the petitioner’s name, the final ROR recorded Hal Plot No.2524/7822 and Hal Plot No.2522 as Government Abada Jogya Anabadi.

pp. 2–3

The Commissioner dismissed the petitioner’s revision under Section 15(b) of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 (OSS Act), citing, among other matters, the absence of proof of the basis of Jamabandi No.447 and uncertainties concerning plot correlation and title.

pp. 3, 5–6

The petitioner challenged that order by writ petition.

p. 1

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Commissioner, exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 15(b) of the OSS Act, properly examined the relevant settlement records before rejecting the petitioner’s claim for correction of the ROR.

¶ 7

ii.2. Whether the Commissioner could reject the claim by requiring proof of the Jamabandi’s basis and the flow of title, rather than confining the inquiry to the correctness of the settlement entries.

¶ 11–12

03Law Applied

Section 15(b) of the OSS Act empowers the Commissioner to examine the correctness of settlement-record entries, but does not confer jurisdiction to adjudicate disputed questions of right, title or interest, which are for the competent Civil Court.

¶ 8

An ROR or Jamabandi entry does not, by itself, confer title; settlement authorities may consider a Jamabandi’s existence, contents and relevance alongside other settlement records, but may not adjudicate its genuineness, the source of rights claimed under it, or title.

¶ 8, 11–12

The Court referred to the Division Bench judgment in Smt. Arati Mukherjee and others v. State of Odisha and Others, O.J.C. No. 81 of 1991, decided on 22 June 1994.

¶ 12

Provisions in the judgment · 1

Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 Section 15

04Reasoning

The draft ROR, the report concerning Amin Report No.1846, and the plot-correlation and settlement records were material to determining whether the land described in the sale deed corresponded to Hal Plot No.2524/7822. The Commissioner could not reject the claim merely because the sale deed referred to an earlier plot number without examining those records.

¶ 9

The claim concerning Hal Plot No.2522 arose from a separate transaction and likewise required examination of the relevant records, including the draft ROR and the asserted correlation between the Sabik and Hal plots.

¶ 10

Although the Commissioner could consider Jamabandi No.447 as a revenue record, the inquiry had to remain focused on the correctness of the ROR entries and could not become an adjudication of the Jamabandi’s validity or the petitioner’s chain of title.

¶ 11–12