Niasha Behera vs State Of Odisha And Others

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

Petitioner in this writ petition seeks to assail the order dated 24.10.2025 (Annexure-8) passed by the Collector, Khordha in OGLS Revision Case No.05 of 2024 confirming the order dated 11.06.2019 (Annexure-6) passed by the Sub-Collector, Khordha in W.L. Case No.52 of 2016.

Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner and her husband being landless persons, were occupying a government land in Plot No.109, Khata No.227 to an extent of Ac.0.04 decimals (kisam Puratan Patita) in village Chutipalanga under Begunia Tahasil in the district of Khordha (for brevity 'the case land'). Both the Petitioner and her husband made an application to the Tahasildar, Begunia for settlement of the case land under their occupation for homestead purpose.

3.1. Upon receipt of the application, the Additional Tahasildar, Begunia sought for a report from the Revenue Inspector, Begunia, which was submitted on 06.06.2016. Accordingly, the Additional Tahasildar, Begunia vide his order dated 18.10.2016 (Annexure-3) in Lease Case No.52 of 2016 recommended settlement of the case land in favour of the Petitioner and her husband. The said proposal was submitted to the Sub-Collector, Khordha for confirmation and the Sub-Collector vide his order dated 15.07.2017 directed the Tahasildar, Begunia to take follow up action and record the case land in the name of both the Petitioner and her husband.

3.2. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that procedure as provided under the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 and the Rules framed thereunder was followed by the Tahasildar for settlement of the case land. When the matter stood thus, the Sub-Collector, Khordha after lapse two years suo motu reopened the W.L. Case No.52 of 2016 and vide his order dated 11.06.2019 (Annexure-6), recalled the order of settlement made vide Annexure-3 holding that the case land is not free from encroachment and the Petitioner is an encroacher. It was further observed that the report of the Revenue Inspector, Begunia and the field visit memorandum jointly signed by the Revenue Inspector, Begunia, Revenue Supervisor, Begunia and the Additional Tahasildar, Begunia dated 18.01.2017 reveal that the applicants (the Petitioner and her husband) were in unauthorised occupation of the case land for more than 10 years. Since the case land was not free from encroachment, he recalled the order of settlement of the Government Land made in favour of the Petitioner and her husband. In the meantime, the husband of the Petitioner namely, Chandra Sekhar Behera died on 14.02.2022. Assailing the same, the Petitioner preferred Revision (OGLS Revision Case No.05 of 2024) before the Collector and District Magistrate, Khordha, who dismissed the said Revision vide order dated 24.10.2025 (Annexure-8) and observed that the Petitioner, if so advised may take shelter under the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972 for consideration and regularisation of the settlement, if any.

3.3. Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that upon receipt of the application for settlement filed by the Petitioner and her husband, the Tahasildar, Begunia called for objection from the public, but no objection was received from any corner. At the time of Joint Field Visit by the Revenue Inspector, Begunia, Revenue Supervisor, Begunia and Tahasildar, Begunia on 18.01.2017, the local public also signed the memorandum expressing their no objection for settlement of the case land in favour of the Petitioner and her husband. The Sub-Collector, Khordha had no jurisdiction to sit over his own order 15.07. 017 under Annexure-5 and recall the same after a lapse of two years without providing any opportunity to the Petitioner. These aspects were not considered by the Collector, Khordha at the time of passing the impugned order under Annexure-8. It is also submitted that the Petitioner is a landless person and is entitled to be settled with a piece of Government land under Basundhara Settlement Scheme. Thus, no illegality was committed by the Tahasildar in settling the case land in favour of the Petitioner under Annexure-3, which was also confirmed by the Sub-Collector, Khordha vide order under Annexure-5. He, therefore, prays for setting aside the impugned orders under Annexures 6 and 8 and direct the Tahasildar, Begunia to correct the Record of Rights in favour of the Petitioner.

Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel vehemently objects to such submission. It is submitted that on perusal of the Joint Field Visit report dated 18.01.2017 and the report of the Revenue Inspector, Begunia, it is clear that an encroachment case was initiated against the Petitioner and her husband in respect of the case land vide Encroachment Case No.125 of 2012. The same was pending at the time of submission of report by the Revenue Inspector, Begunia. Said fact was conveniently brushed aside by the Tahasildar, Begunia at the time of considering settlement of the case land. The Sub-Collector also mechanically confirmed the proposal submitted by the Tahasildar, Begunia and directed for recording the case land in favour of the Petitioner and her husband. When the case land was not encroachment free, it could not have been settled in favour of the Petitioner and her husband. Such material fact was conspicuously kept out of the record at the time of submission of the Joint Field Visit report. Hence, the Sub-Collector, Khordha while recalling the order of settlement vide his order dated 11.06.2019 while recalling the previous order of settlement under Annexure-5 recommended disciplinary proceeding against the concerned Revenue Inspector, Begunia, Revenue Supervisor, Begunia and the Additional Tahasildar, Begunia, who conducted the field visit. Every Court or Authority has inherent power to recall their own order if any flagrant miscarriage of justice on the face of the record has taken place. Thus, the Sub-Collector, Khordha has committed no error in passing the order dated 11.06.2019 (Annexure-6).

4.1. The Collector and District Magistrate, Khordha also committed no error in passing the order dated 24.10.2025 confirming the said order as the case land was not encroachment free. The Collector and District Magistrate, Khordha while dismissing the revision filed by the Petitioner in OGLS Case No.5 of 2024 also observed that the Petitioner may take shelter under the provisions of Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972. Hence, the impugned orders under Annexure 6 & 8 should not be interfered with.

Heard learned Counsel for the Parties and perused the materials on record.

It is apparent from the record that entertaining an application filed by the Petitioner and her husband, the case land was recommended to be settled in favour of them by the Additional Tahasildar, Begunia. The said proposal was submitted to the Sub-Collector, Khordha, who appears to have mechanically confirmed the same. Two years thereafter when the Sub-Collector verified the case record receiving objection from the villagers, the illegalities and irregularities came to light.

We also perused the report of the Revenue Inspector, Begunia at Annexure-2, which reveals that at column no.4, it was reported that the case land was encroachment free but at column no.5 it was reported that Encroachment Case No. 125 of 2012, was pending at the time of submission of the said report. Thus, the report dated 06.06.2016 (Annexure-2) submitted by the Revenue Inspector, Begunia was itself misleading. Further, the Petitioner has enclosed the notice received by her husband in the encroachment case for unauthorised occupation of the case land.

With the aforesaid background, a Joint Field Visit Report could not have been submitted stating that the case land was encroachment free.

Admittedly, the Petitioner and her husband were encroachers of a piece of government land (the case land). The Petitioner might be entitled for settlement of a piece of government land under the Basundhara Settlement Scheme. But that does not entitle her to encroach upon a government land and seek for settlement of the said land on the basis of long possession.

The Additional Tahasildar, Begunia at the time of recommending the case of the Petitioner and her husband for settlement of the case land conveniently brushed aside the same and recommended the settlement.

On perusal of the order of confirmation passed by the Sub-Collector, Khordha on 15.07.2017 (Annexure-5), it also reveals that he did not apply his mind in directing to record the case land in favour of the Petitioner and her husband. Subsequently, the record was reopened receiving objections made by some of the villagers and it was found by the Sub-Collector, Khordha that serious illegalities and irregularities have been committed in recommending settlement of the case land and confirming the same.

Thus, vide his order dated 11.06.2019 (Annexure-6), the Sub-Collector, Khordha while recalling the order of settlement proposed to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the then Revenue Inspector, Begunia, Revenue Supervisor, Begunia and Additional Tahasildar, Begunia. Every Court or Tribunal has the inherent power to recall its own order, if it is found on the face of the record that serious illegalities have been committed while passing the said order.

Thus, the Sub-Collector, Khordha has committed no error in recalling the order of settlement vide order under Annexure-6. The Collector and District Magistrate, Khordha has also committed no error in his order dated 24.10.2025 (Annexure-8) passed in OGLS Revision No.5 of 2024 (filed by the Petitioner) in confirming the said order as the case land could not have been settled in favour of the Petitioner as it was not encroachment free. Hence, we find no infirmity in the orders under Annexures-6 and 8.

Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Dismissal of the writ petition, however, debar the Petitioner to act in accordance with the observation made by the Collector and District Magistrate, Khordha in the impugned order under Annexure-8.

Urgent certified copy of this judgment be granted on proper application.