Unchallenged land acquisition prevails over subsequent revenue entries and mutation claims.

The petitioners claimed ownership and possession over Ac.0.25 decimals in Plot No.104/1117 under Khata No.153/356, Mouza-Golabandha, purchased through Registered Sale Deed No.147 dated 12.01.2005.

Their names were mutated in Mutation Case No.825 of 2021; they constructed structures on the land and paid rent up to 10.01.2024.

The petitioners alleged that the land was deleted from their Record of Rights (“ROR”) and recorded in favour of IDCO without notice. They claimed to have discovered the alteration on 06.04.2025 and submitted a representation on 07.04.2025. Eviction proceedings and removal of the structures were subsequently initiated.

The State contended that the land had already been acquired in L.A. Case No.03 of 2006 and that the ROR was corrected in IDCO’s favour pursuant to a revised rent-abatement statement dated 24.09.2024.

NALCO stated that the land formed part of Ac.19.38 decimals acquired for its benefit, that compensation had been determined under Award No.9, and that the amount was deposited before the Civil Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, after the petitioners failed to receive it.

Pursuant to the Court’s direction, the Collector, Angul conducted an enquiry. The report disclosed that the entire Ac.0.50 decimals comprising Plot No.104/1117 formed part of the acquisition. Notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were issued in 2006 and 2007 respectively; compensation notices were issued in 2009 and 2012, and Rs.92,253 was deposited before the Civil Court on 08.10.2012.

1. Whether the case land was acquired in L.A. Case No.03 of 2006 and compensation was duly determined and deposited?

2. Whether the subsequent correction of the ROR in favour of IDCO in Rent Abatement Case No.24 of 2023 could be interfered with merely because the petitioners were allegedly not given separate notice?

3. Whether the petitioners were entitled to restoration of their names in the ROR and protection from eviction despite not challenging the acquisition notifications, award, or deposit of compensation?

The Court applied Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in examining the legality of the revenue authorities’ action.

It relied on Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which provide for acquisition notification and declaration, and Section 31(2), under which compensation not received by the landholder may be deposited before the Civil Court.

The Court held that mutation and correction of revenue records are fiscal in character and neither create nor extinguish title.

The Court further applied the clean-hands doctrine, relying on Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India, (2010) 14 SCC 38, under which a litigant who suppresses material facts is not entitled to relief under Article 226.

The Collector’s report and acquisition records established that the petitioners’ land formed part of the area acquired in L.A. Case No.03 of 2006. The Court found that the statutory notifications had been issued, compensation had been awarded, notices for payment had been served, and the unpaid compensation had been deposited under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act.

Since the petitioners had not challenged the acquisition notifications, declaration, award, or deposit of compensation, they could not indirectly challenge the acquisition by seeking restoration of their names in the ROR.

The subsequent mutation in favour of the petitioners in 2021 and acceptance of rent thereafter could not confer or revive title, because revenue entries are merely fiscal and cannot override a completed acquisition.

Even assuming that no separate notice had been issued in the rent-abatement proceeding, that omission did not invalidate the underlying acquisition or entitle the petitioners to restoration of the ROR. The correction was consequential to the acquisition and was not the source of the divestment of title.

The Court also found that the petitioners had approached it without disclosing the material fact of the earlier acquisition, thereby suppressing facts relevant to the relief sought. This independently disentitled them to equitable relief under Article 226.

The alleged absence of separate notice in Rent Abatement Case No.24 of 2023 did not justify restoration of the petitioners’ names in the ROR.

In view of the suppression of the acquisition proceedings and the absence of merit, the writ petition was dismissed, and no relief was granted.