IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK O.J.C. No.13720 of 1997 (An application under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India) Daitary Swain ..... Petitioner -Versus- Kartika Swain & Others ..... Opp. Parties _______________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. D.P. Mohanty, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. B. Das, Advocate [For O.P. Nos.1 and 2] Mr. G. Mohanty, Standing Counsel [For Opp. Party Nos.3 to 6] _______________________________________________________ CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA JUDGMENT 31stJuly, 2026 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition with the following prayer:- “The petitioner therefore, prays that in view of the facts and circumstances stated above this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this application and pass an order staying operation of the orders passed vide Annexures-4 and 5 till disposal of the writ application; And for this act of kindness, the petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray.” 2. Be it noted that originally, a Bench of this Court noticing conflicting judgments on the question of heritability and transferability of Sikimi right, referred the matter for decision to a larger Bench by order dated 05.02.2016. Four specific questions were referred for determination. Accordingly, a Full Bench was constituted, which heard the matter in detail and by judgment passed on 27.03.2019, answered the reference. The matter was thereafter, placed before this Court for disposal. FACTS 3. The case property pertains to Sabik-Khata No.7 of Mouza-Jagannathpur in the district of Jajpur being recorded in the names of Suka Dibya, widow of Gopinath Panda and Puni Dibya, widow of Subudhi Panda. Such recording was in ‘Bajyapti Stitiban’ status in the settlement ROR of 1929. The Khata consisted of only one plot being Plot No.173, which was in possession of two Sikimi tenants namely, Jogi Swain and Gopi Swain. Their status was also recorded in the C.S. Khatian under Sikimi Khata No.2 as ‘Sikimi Dakhal Satwa Bisista’ with occupancy right. The rent was payable in kind. The following genealogy depicts the relationship between the Petitioner and Opposite Parties:- GENEALOGY Anadi Nidhi Jogi Swain Gopi Swain Uri Bewa(Wife) Maheswar Daitary (Petitioner) Kartika Jagabandhu (O.P. No.1) (O.P. No.2) 4. The petitioner is the only son of Gopi Swain and has been possessing the land with Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 after death of their respective fathers to the knowledge of all a N concerned. After vesting, the petitioner filed an application before the Revenue Officer, Darpan vide OLR Case No.280 of 1988 under Section 4(9) for determination of fair and equitable rent for converting the kind rent to cash rent. The Revenue Officer settled the land in favour of the petitioner and the Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 by order dated 28.06.1988 and assessed the rent. Since then, the petitioner has been paying rent to the authorities. 5. The Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 challenged the above order in appeal before the Sub-Collector, Jajpur being OLR Appeal No.9 of 1989. It was claimed that the superior tenants being Suka Dibya and Puni Dibya had transferred the disputed land to one Duryodhan Panda vide RSD dated 20.01.1933. Said Duryodhan Panda sold the land to Jogi Swain, the paternal grandfather of Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 vide RSD dated 29.04.1935. As such, the Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 claim to be the owners in possession of the disputed land being successors-in-interest of Jogi Swain. The Sub-Collector held that by virtue of such purchase Duryodhan Panda had acquired the superior Stitiban right while the Sikimi right was restored to the original tenants. The petitioner’s Sikimi right was not affected by the subsequent transfers. The appeal was thus dismissed. 6. The Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 feeling aggrieved, preferred O.L.R. Revision Case No.11 of 1994 before the Additional District Magistrate (ADM), Jajpur. At this stage, it was pleaded that their mother Uri Bewa had executed an unregistered deed of relinquishment on 30.06.1935 in respect of the disputed land in favour of Jogi Swain, grandfather of Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 and delivered possession. Since then, Jogi was in possession and after him, the Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 are in possession and paying rent to the Government. 7. The petitioner seriously opposed the plea regarding relinquishment by contending that the same was an afterthought and never produced before the Courts below. In any case, Uri Bewa could not have been the owner in possession in respect of the entire land measuring Ac.0.17 decimals but only had a share of 8 Annas corresponding to that of her husband Jogi Swain. The revisional authority however, allowed the revision accepting the plea of relinquishment and held that the original application filed by the petitioner under Section 4(9) of the OLR Act was barred by limitation. It was further held that Gopi Swain having died prior to 1935, his interest reverted to Jogi Swain as he had purchased the Parent Khata No.7. The revision was thus allowed vide order dated 31.07.1995, which is impugned in the present Writ Petition. 8. It would be apposite to mention here that the petitioner filed another revision numbered as OLR Revision Case No.28 of 1995 which was rejected by order dated 19.08.1997 whereby, the Court held that when the land transactions and relinquishments occurred, sikimi tenants were merely tenants-at-will who possessed no legal rights of transfer or inheritance and that it lacked the proper jurisdiction to adjudicate on the validity of the alleged fraudulent unregistered relinquishment deed from 1935, concluding that the petitioner had ultimately failed to establish his claim to the property convincingly. 9. 9. The private Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 entered appearance pursuant to notice of the Writ Petition but did not prefer to file any counter affidavit. No counter has also been filed by the State. 10. Heard Mr. D.P. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner; Mr. B. Das, learned counsel for Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 and Mr. G. Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel for State-Opposite Party Nos.3 to 6. 11. Mr. Mohanty would argue that the law having been settled by the Full Bench, nothing further remains to be decided in the present Writ Petition except for holding that the right of the petitioner as a Sikimi tenant, being heritable and transferable, cannot be extinguished. He further argues that even otherwise, the so-called unregistered deed of relinquishment introduced by Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 belatedly at the stage of revision could not have been taken into consideration by the revisional authority and in any case, it does not confer any right, title and interest on the person in whose favour such document was allegedly executed. He further submits that in view of the language used in Section 4(9) the word ‘Rayat’ includes ‘Under Rayat’ and therefore, no landlord shall be entitled to recover from his Rayat more than a fair and equitable rent and on application filed by either parties, the Revenue Officer shall determine the same in the prescribed manner. The Revenue Officer has correctly applied the law and has assessed the rent. The impugned order passed by the revisional authority therefore, deserves to be interfered with. 12. Mr. B. Das would argue that as per Section 4 of the OLR Act, an application for assessment of rent has to be made within two years from the date of commencement of the OLR Amendment Act of 1975. The petitioner’s application was much after the period of limitation and therefore, the Revenue Officer could not have entertained the same moreso, as the same was not in the prescribed form. Moreover, the landlord being the superior tenant was not a party to the proceeding nor any notice was ever served upon him. Even though the Full Bench of this Court has decided about transferable and heritable right of the Sikimi tenant but prior to 1976 when the amendment to the OLR Act came to force, such right was neither heritable nor transferable and after death of the Sikimi tenant the land was to revert to the superior tenant. Admittedly, Gopi Swain died in 1935. Therefore, as per the prevailing law his interest reverted to the superior tenants (Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2) being the successors-in-interest of the superior tenant, Jogi swain. Mr. Das further submits that the petitioner has not proved his possession over the land. As regards the challenge to the deed of relinquishment Mr. Das would argue that it being a document more than thirty years old must be presumed to have been duly executed and produced from proper custody under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act. 13. Mr. Mohanty, learned Standing Counsel (O.P.Nos.3 to 6) would argue that the position of law having been settled by the Full Bench, it is for the Sikimi tenant to prove his case by adducing evidence. The order of the revisional Court is based on materials placed before him and the analysis made by him is purely factual in nature. Unless, the petitioner demonstrates any blatant error in the order, this Court should be slow to interfere. 14. Before considering the merits of the rival contentions, it would be apt to refer to the judgment passed by the Full Bench. The following questions were referred:- 1.What is the status of a Sikimi tenant? Page 10 of 16 2.Whether right of the Sikimi tenants in respect of agricultural land vis-à-vis homestead is different and distinct? 3.Whether the Sikimi right in respect of agricultural land is heritable and transferable? 4.Whether the Sikimi right in respect of homestead is heritable and transferable? 15. All the previous judgments passed by the different Benches of this Court in this context were considered and analysed in detail including the Final Report on the Revision Settlement of Orissa, 1922-1932 A.D., 1934. The different provisions of the OLR Act and the Tenancy Act were also referred to and analysed. Ultimately, the following was observed by the full Bench:- “8.3. As indicated earlier with the amendment introduced by the Orissa Act 29 of 1976, the status of Sikimi tenant in respect of land under personal cultivation of such tenant has undergone sea change. Therefore, in our opinion the correct position with regard to right of Sikimi tenant so far as agricultural land is concerned is that after amendment of the Clause (i) of Sub- Section (1) of Section 4 of the “OLR Act”, such Sikimi tenancy has become both heritable and transferable. 8.4. No doubt without complying the provisions of Sub-Sections (5) to (8) a Sikimi tenant cannot become a raiyat but that does not in any way affect his rights as a Sikimi tenant to transfer the agricultural land and the right of his legal heirs to inherit the same. The Clause (i) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 4 of the “OLR Act” cannot be read to mean that only after being declared as a raiyat, the Sikimi tenancy of a Sikimi tenant can become heritable and transferable. 8.5. In other words, even without being declared as a raiyat by virtue of the amendment of Clause (i) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 4 of the “OLR Act” as per Act 29 of 1976, a Sikimi tenant can transfer his cultivable/agricultural land and his legal heirs can inherit the same. Therefore, the attempt made by Mr. Pradhan, learned Additional Government Advocate to show that a Sikimi tenancy cannot be transferred and inherited unless a declaration under Sub-Section(5) of Section 4 of the “OLR Act” cannot be accepted as the same runs contrary to the intention of amended Clause (i) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 4 of the “OLR Act”. 16. Further with regard to the previous judgments, the full Bench observed as follows:- 9.1 In such background, for reasons indicated earlier, we have no hesitation in coming to a conclusion that so, far as the issue of status of Sikimi tenancy is concerned, the conclusion of the Division Bench of this Court is wholly erroneous. Accordingly, we overrule the observation made in that decision with regard to the present issue wherein it has observed that Sikimi tenancy is neither heritable nor transferable. Subal Baliarsingh case (Supra) involved a suit relating to eviction where judgment was pronounced on 24.01.2004. There the plaintiffs claimed that their predecessor Gangadhar was a Sikimi tenant. In the said eviction suit the defendants took a plea that since the Sikimi right is not heritable; the plaintiffs could have no title to that portion of the disputed land i.e. Plot No.400. Relying on Natabar Pandey case, the Single Bench therein came to a conclusion that since such tenancy is neither heritable nor transferable, the plaintiffs cannot claim title over the same and bring any suit for eviction vis-à-vis Plot No.400. However, in that judgment also there is neither any reference to the amended provisions of Section 4(1)(i) of the "OLR Act" nor to Smt. Sarala Kumari Rath's case [Supra] which makes it clear that Sikimi tenancy both with regard to homestead land and agricultural land is transferable and heritable. In such background, we have no hesitation in coming to a conclusion that declaration of law made by the ledined Single Judge in Subal Baliarsingh (Supra) case with regard tostatus of Sikimi tenant is incorrect and accordingly, we over rule the same to that extent. 17. Ultimately, the full Bench answered the reference as follows:- “10.1. With regard to question No.1, we are clearly of the opinion that in the background of Dalziel Report and definition of Sikimi tenant as given by “Purna Chandra Odia Bhasakosha”, a Sikimi tenant can be described both as sub- tenant and under-raiyat. With regard to the second question, our answer would be right of Sikimi tenants in respect of agricultural land and homestead land has become similar after coming into force of Orissa Act 29 of 1976 amending the “OLR Act”. With regard to third question, our answer is Sikimi right in respect of agricultural land is both heritable and transferable as has been correctly laid down in Smt. Sarala Kumari Rath’s case (Supra). With regard to question No.4, our answer would be, Sikimi right in respect of homestead land is clearly heritable and transferable.” 18. From the above observations and findings of the Full Bench, this Court finds that there is nothing really left to decide for this Court as regards the right of the petitioner as the successor-in-interest of the original Sikimi tenant. This was duly recognized by the Revenue Officer. The rent was assessed and the land was appropriately settled. The appellate Court, after noting the facts and the relevant provisions of law found the case to have been correctly decided by the Revenue Officer and therefore, confirmed its order. The revisional authority however, reversed the orders of the lower Courts relying upon an unregistered deed of relinquishment allegedly executed by Uri Bewa, mother of the petitioner in favour of Jogi Swain, predecessor in interest of Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2. Firstly, since the document purports to relinquish the right over the property the same ought to have been registered, in the absence of which, it cannot be treated as a valid document. Secondly, what is surprising to note is that the document though purports to have been executed way back in the year 1935, did not see the light of the day till hearing of the revision by the ADM. Why the document was not produced before the Revenue Officer or the Appellate Authority has not been satisfactorily explained. 19. As regards limitation, the revisional Court has referred to the provision under Section 4(5) of the OLR Act to hold that the application before the Revenue Officer having been filed beyond two years from the date of commencement of the OLR Amendment Act, 1973 could not have been entertained. This appears to be a factual error inasmuch as, the application was filed not under Section 4(5) but under Section 4(9) of the OLR Act. Section 4(9) reads as follows:- “Section.4-Raiyats- 4(9). With effect from the date of commencement of this Act no landlord shall be entitled to recover from his raiyat more than a fair and equitable rent and where in any case rent is paid in kind the Revenue Officer on application of either of the parties interested shall determine the fair and equitable rent in the prescribed manner and pending such determination the rent payable shall not exceed one-eight of the gross produce or the equivalent thereof.” 20. It is obvious that for an application under this Sub- Section no limitation is prescribed. To amplify, the application under Section 4(5) is for declaration of the status of a Sub- Tenant/Under Tenant as Rayat. The application filed by the petitioner however, was for determination of fair and equitable rent. There is an essential difference between the two, which the revisional authority has evidently missed. 21. As regards possession, the revisional authority was of the view that the report of the Revenue Inspector should not have been relied upon but the Jamabandi payment of rent receipts as per tenants’ ledger ought to have been verified. This Court finds that the Revenue Officer relied upon the report of the R.I., Badaghumuri. The R.I. also being a public functionary and his report being evidently based on physical verification cannot be ignored or brushed aside unless it is demonstrated to be factually incorrect. It has not been shown as to how such report was wrong. 22. As regards non-impletion of the superior tenant, this Court is of the view that there being no conflict of interest of the petitioner with him or his successors in interest, and the present case being confined only to determine Sikimi right, his non-impletion has no material bearing in the case. 23. Thus, from the foregoing discussion, this Court is convinced that the revisional authority has proceeded on erroneous appreciation of facts and law to reverse the orders passed by the Courts below. 24. For the reasons indicated, the impugned orders cannot be sustained. 25. The Writ Petition is therefore, allowed. The impugned orders under Annexures-4 and 5 are set aside. ..……..…………………. (Sashikanta Mishra), Judge The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack 31st July, 2026 Puspanjali Ghadai, Jr. Stenographer Designation: Junior Stenographer Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 31-Jul-2026 15:39:37