Record of Rights against Direction of Revisional Authority can’t be modified by Tehsildar: Orissa High Court
Orissa High Court stated that Tahasildar Can’t Modify Record Of Rights Against Direction Of Revisional Authority. This was seen in the case of Anugraha Narayan Pattnaik v. State of Odisha & Ors.( W.P.(C) No. 20072 of 2022) and the judgement was presided over by the Coram of JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH.
Facts of the case-
The issue was regarding Section 37(1) of the O.C.H. & P.F.L. Act, where the revisional authority, after providing opportunity of hearing to the State Authorities as well as the private parties involved therein, directed as follows:
“Tahasildar Balipatna is directed to verify all the documents and record the suit land in favour of petitioner and Opp. Parties from 02 to 19 by creating a separate khata and delete the note of possession from Hal plot No.154 and 155 in Hal khata no.542 as per circular No. XLII-65/87, 8089/LRS Dt: 13-07-1987 issued by Board of Revenue, Odisha Cuttack Following Due process of Law.”
Now the issue that arose before the High Court was Whether the Tahasildar is right in exercising the power of correction of the record of rights in deviation of the direction of the revisional authority.
Judgement –
The Court found out that the Tahasildar took a decision which goes against the direction issued by the competent authority under Section 37(1) of the O.C. H. & P.F.L. Act. The Bench held that the aforesaid act of the Tahasildar is not permissible in the eyes of law and in its considered opinion, so long as the order of the competent authority under the above provision remains intact, the Tahasildar being the subordinate authority is bound by the same.
Furthermore in disposal of the proceedings the tehsildar exceeded his jurisdiction and even acted contrary to the direction of the superior authority. Accordingly, the Court interfering with the impugned order of the Tahasildar, set aside the same and remitted the matter back to the Tahasildar for reconsideration, strictly in terms of the direction of the revisional authorities.
In this regard the court said- “It is from the impugned order at Annexure-4 this Court finds, the Tahasildar in his limited jurisdiction took a decision differing from the direction of the competent authority U/s.37(I) of the O.C.H. & P.F.L. Act, which is not permissible in the eye of law. For the opinion of this Court so long as the order of the competent authority U/s.37(1) of the O.C.H. & P.F.L. Act, 1972 remains intact, the Tahasildar being the subordinate authority is bound by the same. This Court finds, the Tahasildar in disposal of the proceeding has exceeded his jurisdiction and even acted contrary to the direction of the superior authority. In the process this Court interfering with the order at Annexure-4, sets aside the same and remits the matter to the Tahasildar for having re-exercise involving the request of the Petitioner, strictly in terms of the direction of the revisional authority vide Annexure-3. For there is requirement of urgent action by the Tahasildar, this Court grants the Tahasildar concerned one month time for completing such exercise.”
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement reviewed by Utkarsh Sahu