Authority: High Court of Odisha at Cuttack

Order Date: Not specified (judgment issued in 2025)

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: M/s Acrux Realcon Pvt. Ltd., represented by Director Sri Rahid Swain.
  • Opposite parties: State of Odisha & others.
  • Writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227: WP(C) Nos. 4733, 4591, 4728 & 4730 of 2025.
  • Core dispute: correction of the Record of Rights (ROR) for 1.000 acre government land (Hal Khata No.684, Plot No.1180, Sabik Khata No.174/13, Plot No.47/690) in Mouza‑Gothapatna, Bhubaneswar.
  • Historical chain: 1973 settlement to Dhoia Dehury (landless labourer, Scheduled Tribe); 1986 Section 22 permission (D.R. No.1824 dated 31‑Dec‑1986); 1987 sale to Biswakesh Tripathy (RSD No.1579 dated 17‑Feb‑1987); 1993 mutation (Case No.2551); 2009 purchase by petitioner (RSD dated 13‑Nov‑2009).
  • Earlier proceedings: Rent Objection Case No.3156 of 2012 (rejected); W.P.(C) No.19040 of 2014 (court set aside ASO order, allowed statutory remedy); Misc. Case No.969 of 2000 (order dated 30‑Oct‑2002 under Section 3‑B OGLS Act, spot enquiry dropped resumption); Revision Case No.71 of 1983 (lease cancellation, record unavailable).
  • Revision petition: OSS Case No.1201 of 2021 (Section 15(b) OSS Act) dismissed by Additional Commissioner, Additional Revision Court No. IV, Bhubaneswar on 09‑Dec‑2024, with directions to Tahasildar and Collector to protect government land.
  • Counter‑affidavit by Tahasildar: argued lack of original lease records, missing Section 22 permission, and that land recorded as ‘Abad Jogya Anabadi’.
  • Rejoinder by petitioner: asserted documents existed, highlighted Scheduled Tribe status, relied on 2002 order and conversion under Section 8‑A OLR Act, cited precedent judgment dated 11‑Dec‑2019.
  • Arguments: petitioner claimed revisional authority exceeded jurisdiction; state argued decision based on available records and non‑production of key documents.

Final Outcome

  • The High Court set aside the impugned orders dated 09‑Dec‑2024 (OSS Cases No.1201 of 2021, No.37 of 2022, No.1199 of 2021, No.1200 of 2021).
  • The matters are remitted to the revisional authority for fresh consideration of the petitioner's claim for correction of the ROR, with the instruction that the revisional authority must not reopen or adjudicate the validity of the OGLS Act proceedings.
  • The Court expressly refrained from expressing any final opinion on the validity of the original settlement, subsequent transfers, or the petitioner’s ultimate title entitlement.

Topics: Court Judgment, Land Rights, Government Land