p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C). No.15682 of 2024 (An application under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India) Manorama Swain & others ....... Petitioners -Versus- Commissioner Land Reforms-cum- Commissioner Consolidation & Settlement Odisha & others ....... Opposite Parties Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode: ___________________________________________________________ For Petitioners : Mr. G.N.Rout, Advocate For Opp. Parties: Mr. S.N. Patnaik, Addl. Government Advocate Mr. S. Ray, Advocate (For Opp. Party nos. 4,6,7,8, and 9) _______________________________________________________ CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA JUDGMENT 7th April, 2026 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. The petitioners seek to challenge the order dated 31.05.2022 passed by the Commissioner, Land Reforms-cum-Commissioner, Consolidation and p. 2 Settlement, Odisha, Cuttack in Revision Case No. 138 of 2021 as well as the order dated 12.01.2023 passed in Misc. Case No. 54 of 2022, whereby the Tahasildar, Raghunathpur has been directed to correct the ROR on the basis of the Gift Deed dated 10.06.1967 and Sale Deed dated 21.07.1952. 2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that land measuring Ac.0.51 dec. under Sabik Khata No. 20, comprising Sabik Plot Nos. 353, 356 and 354 of village Pateligaon was recorded in the names of the ancestors of the parties under the Sabik ROR published in 1930. The land was ancestral and jointly held by two branches of the family, each having half share. During the lifetime of the recorded tenants, a portion of the land was transferred by Sale Deed dated 21.07.1952 in favour of Madan Swain and thereafter, Kahnei Swain executed a Gift Deed dated 10.06.1967 in favour of Madan Swain and Amarendra Swain in respect of his share. Subsequently, Ac.0.13 dec. of land was acquired for canal expansion prior to Hal Settlement, leaving Ac. 0.38 decs. Said land was recorded jointly in the names of Madan p. 3 Swain and Amarendra Swain in the Hal Settlement ROR (1983) and thereafter in the Consolidation ROR published on 03.02.1993, without specification of shares. After 28 years, Opposite Party Nos. 4 to 9 filed a revision under Section 37(1) of the OCH & PFL Act claiming separate recording of land on the basis of the aforesaid Sale Deed and Gift Deed. The Commissioner, Consolidation allowed the revision, pursuant to which, separate RORs have been issued recording Ac.0.25 dec. in favour of the opposite parties and Ac.0.13 dec. in favour of the petitioners. Said order of the Commissioner, along with the order rejecting the recall application is impugned in the present writ petition. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the private opposite parties contending that the suit land had already been mutually partitioned between the parties long prior to the consolidation operation, though the ROR was recorded jointly. It is stated by them that Madan Swain was entitled to Ac.0.25 dec. and Amar Swain to Ac.0.13 dec., and the consolidation entry showing joint recording does not reflect p. 4 the actual state of affairs. The Commissioner, after due consideration of the Sale Deed dated 21.07.1952 and Gift Deed dated 10.06.1967 as well as the materials on record, has rightly allowed the revision and directed correction of the ROR. It is also stated that, pursuant to the impugned order, the Tahasildar, after conducting field enquiry and verification of records has issued separate RORs in favour of the respective parties. 4. Heard Mr. G.N.Rout, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. S. Ray, learned counsel for the Opposite party nos. 4,6,7,8, and 9 and Mr. S.N. Patnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. 5. Mr. Rout would argue that the land in question was admittedly recorded jointly in the Hal Settlement ROR as well as in the Consolidation ROR without specification of shares, which carries a presumption of joint possession and equal entitlement. He further submits that the Commissioner erred in directing correction of the ROR solely on the basis of pre- settlement Sale Deed and Gift Deed, without taking into p. 5 consideration the subsequent reduction of land due to acquisition of Ac.0.13 dec. for canal expansion. He also argues that the revisional authority in effect has partitioned the joint holding by allotting specific extents of land in favour of the parties without consent of the co-sharers, which is beyond his jurisdiction under Section 37(1) of the OCH & PFL Act. He also submits that the revision having been filed after an inordinate delay of about 28 years from the publication of the Consolidation ROR ought not to have been entertained. 6. Per contra, Mr. Ray would argue that the impugned orders have been passed upon due consideration of the Sale Deed dated 21.07.1952, Gift Deed dated 10.06.1967 and other materials on record. He submits that the joint entry in the ROR does not reflect the actual state of affairs as the land had already been mutually partitioned between the parties, and the respective shares have rightly been recognized by the Commissioner. He also argues that the Tahasildar, pursuant to the impugned order, has effected correction of the ROR after due field enquiry and verification. p. 6 7. Mr. S.N. Patnaik would argue that the correction of the ROR has been directed in consonance with recorded transactions of gift deed and sale deed. He further submits that the dispute raised by the petitioners relating to partition of joint holding, consent of co-sharers and allotment of shares involves disputed questions of title and possession and can only be adjudicated by the competent civil Court. 8. From the arguments advanced, it is seen that the parties are litigating over Ac.0. 01 dec. of land. Both parties have based their claims on the genealogy of the family and the subsequent devolution of interest, including transfers by way of Sale Deed dated 21.07.1952 and Gift Deed dated 10.06.1967 of portions of the property by different persons to different members of the same family. 9. In the revision filed under Section 37(1) of the OCH and PFL Act, 1972, the Commissioner took note of the rival contentions as well as the recording of the land in the name of different members of the same family. After full-length of hearing, the Commissioner allowed the revision by directing p. 7 the concerned Tahasildar to correct the ROR as per gift deed and registered sale deed. Be it noted that the gift deed or the sale deed in question have never been challenged by the present petitioners. 10. The order passed in the revision under Section 37 was also not challenged as such but a Misc. Case was filed for modification of the order. Since the original order of the Commissioner is based on the gift deed and sale deed executed long back, the Commissioner rightly allowed the revision relating to the said deeds. 11. The petitioners claim that the partition of joint holding without consent of co-sharers is without jurisdiction of the consolidation authority. Further, the petitioners appear to have based their claim on division of the original land between different members of the two branches as also subsequent transfers of portions thereof at different points of time. These are purely factual issues that cannot be gone into by this Court exercising writ jurisdiction. Any challenge to the allotment of shares and the consequent claim of parity can p. 8 only be adjudicated by the civil Court on the basis of evidence. This Court is therefore, of the view that the Commissioner committed no illegality in allowing the revision and in rejecting the Misc. Case filed by the petitioners for modification. The petitioners may work out their remedy, if any, under law in the competent civil Court but not in the present forum. 12. For the foregoing reasons therefore, this Court finds no merit in the writ application, which is dismissed. ……..………………….. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 7th April, 2026/ Deepak