Susama Das vs State Of Odisha And Others

Sashikanta Mishra, J

The Petitioner in the present writ petition prays for quashing of order dated 04.03.2024 passed by the Additional Tahasildar, Sambalpur in RMC Case No. 82 of 2023, whereby the revenue authority directed correction of the Record of Rights (RoR) in favour of the private opposite parties without issuing notice to the petitioner.

Facts of the case are that the petitioner claims to have purchased a piece of land through registered sale deed dated 18.06.2009. She also had the RoR issued in her name. She has instituted Civil Suit No. 255 of 2022 before the Senior Civil Judge, Sambalpur seeking declaration of title and injunction, which is pending. During pendency of this suit, the opposite parties filed RMC Case No. 82 of 2023, in which order for correction of the ROR in favour of the opposite parties was passed, allegedly without issuing notice to the petitioner. The petitioner claims she became aware of this order only in June 2025, obtained a certified copy on 22.07.2025, and thereafter filed the present writ petition challenging the same on the ground of absence of notice and interference during a pending civil dispute.

Counter affidavit has been filed by the private opp. parties inter alia, claiming ownership and possession over the case land on the strength of a prior judgment and decree dated 20.09.1971 and 23.09.1971 passed in Title Suit No.65/90 of 1958/60. It is stated that the decree has been put into execution in Execution Case No.37 of 1983 and delivery of possession has been effected through Court process in the year 2022. It is also contended that the petitioner is a subsequent purchaser from a person having no title and therefore, does not acquire any right over the case land. The allegation regarding non-issuance of notice has also been denied stating that the petitioner claims through her vendor and her right, if any, is derivative in nature. It is also stated that the petitioner has already availed alternative remedies by filing civil suit as well as mutation appeal and, therefore, the present writ petition is not maintainable

Heard Mr. A.P. Bose, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mrs. J. Sahoo, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State and Mr. Y. Samantray, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party Nos.3 to19.

Mr. Bose would argue that, the impugned order cannot be sustained, firstly on the ground that the same was passed without issuing notice to the petitioner, thus violating the principle of audi alteram partem. He submits that as such, she was unable to place essential documents before the authorities regarding her interest in the property namely the RSDs and the RoR proving her title and possession. He further argues that impugned order was passed during the pendency of Civil Suit no. 255 of 2022 before the Senior Civil Judge, Sambalpur for declaration of right, title and interest between the same parties. Thus, the matter was sub-judice when the impugned order was passed. Furthermore, the opp. parties being aware of the above suit filed the RMC case without impleading the petitioner as a party deliberately.

Mrs. J. Sahoo, ASC argues that this is a case of routine correction of revenue records based on existing decree and possession, for which the petitioner has alternative remedies and civil proceedings pending. She further submits that the petitioner's claim arises from a subsequent transaction of 2009 and the question of title is sub judice in the civil suit. She also submits that no substantial prejudice has been caused to the petitioner by the impugned order, since the ROR entry does not conclusively determine her title and remains subject to the outcome of the pending civil suit.

Mr. Samantray, learned counsel for the private opp. parties argues that the title and possession over the suit land stand conclusively established by the judgment and decree dated 20.09.1971 and 23.09.1971 passed in Title Suit No.65/90 of 1958/60, which has attained finality and duly executed through Execution Case No. 37 of 1983, culminating in delivery of possession under Order 21 Rule 35 CPC after due demarcation by the civil court commissioner. Thus, the petitioner's purchase is hit by the doctrine of lis pendens. Since, the land was already recorded in the names of the private opposite parties, any subsequent transfer pendente lite cannot defeat the decree passed. He further submits that the opp. parties had no knowledge of the purchase or claim until the stage of execution and demarcation, and hence, she was never recognized as a person interested in the property/suit land. Hence, no notice was issued to her during the RMC proceedings.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it is evident that the dispute between the parties relates to right, title and interest over the case land, which is already subject matter of Civil Suit No.255 of 2022 pending before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sambalpur.

It is not in dispute that the private opposite parties claim title on the basis of a judgment and decree passed by a competent civil court in Title Suit Nos.65/90 of 1958/60 and the same has been put into execution in Execution Case No.37 of 1983, wherein delivery of possession has also been effected through due process of law.

The petitioner, on the other hand, claims right on the basis of a purchase made in the year 2009. It is well settled that a purchaser cannot acquire a better title than that of the vendor. Whether the petitioner's vendor had any valid title over the case land is a disputed question, which cannot be adjudicated by this Court sitting in writ jurisdiction and same is to be decided in the pending civil suit.

As regards non-issuance of notice is concerned, this Court finds that the petitioner having already approached the civil court in CS No. 255 of 2022 claiming right, title and interest over the same property, even if this court holds that notice was not served upon her, it would hardly enure to the benefit of both parties to set aside the impugned order only on such ground. It goes without saying that ultimately, the decision of the civil court shall prevail.

For the foregoing reasons therefore, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The writ application is hence, dismissed.