IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 34076 of 2025 An application under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of India. --------------- AFR Debasis Mohanty ...… Petitioner -Versus- State of Odisha & others ...…. Opp. Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case though hybrid mode :- _______________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. D.C. Mohanty, Sr. Adv. with M/s. S.K. Choudhury, P.K. Das & D.K. Sahoo, Advocates For Opp. Parties : Mr. A.R. Dash, Addl. Government Advocate _______________________________________________________ JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA JUDGMENT 23rd April, 2026 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. The petitioner assails the order dated 22.09.2025 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Additional Revision Court-IV, Odisha, Bhubaneswar in OSS Case No.664 of 2022 in dismissing the said case filed by him. 2. Facts of the case, briefly stated, are that one Radhu Nayak was the recorded tenant and owner in possession of land measuring Ac.1.00 dec. pertaining to Sabik Plot No. 552/774 under Sabik Khata No. 140/72 in Mouza Bhola under Chandaka Police Station. Said land corresponds to Hal Plot Nos. 814 and 815 under Hal Khata No. 305. The land was leased out to Radhu Nayak as per order passed in Waste Land Lease Case No. 137/68-69 by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar. During subsistence of the lease, Radhu Nayak sold portions of the land to the petitioner by executing two registered sale deeds being RSD No. 2681 dated 27.05.1998 and RSD No. 2682, also dated 27.05.1998, each for Ac.0.62 dec.. The petitioner after purchase, is continuing to be the owner in possession of the case land. During the last settlement operation, the draft record of rights and Yadast was prepared in the name of the petitioner acknowledging his ownership and possession over the case land. The Asst. Settlement Officer, Rental Colony, Bhubaneswar initiated a suo motu proceeding being Objection Case No. 5811/575 of 2012. By order dated 11.12.2012, the objection case was disposed of refusing to acknowledge the petitioner’s claim over the case land and by directing the same to be recorded in the name of State as Abada Jogya Anabadi. The petitioner challenged such order before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 28250 of 2013. By order dated 04.05.2022, this Court disposed of the writ application directing the petitioner to prefer revision under Section 15(b) of the Odisha Survey and Settlement Act against the impugned order. As such, the petitioner filed the aforementioned revision. 3. By order dated 06.09.2024, the revision was rejected on the ground that in the absence of certified copy of the waste land lease and Hal Sabik index, the flow of title is not established. It was thus held that the petitioner has no valid title. It was also held that it was an attempt to grab government land. The petitioner challenged such order before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 28753 of 2022 inter alia, contending that by letter dated 04.05.2005, the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar had stated that though the WL Case record is not readily available but upon perusal of the relevant Khata, the subsistence of the lease in favour of the original lessee was proved. By order dated 11.08.2025, this Court set aside the order of the revisional Court and remitted the matter for fresh consideration by taking note of the aforesaid letter of the Tahasildar and by calling for the records of the WL Case. The Revision was thus heard again but by order passed on 22.09.2025, it was dismissed by holding that the petitioner has no valid title and that it was an attempt made by him to grab government land by misleading the revisional Court. Said order is impugned. 4. Counter affidavit has been filed by opposite party No.3 justifying the impugned order. It is, inter alia, stated that though the land was recorded in pattadar status in the name of the petitioner, the record of right was finally published recording the land in Government Khata. 5. Heard Mr. D.C. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. D.K. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.R. Dash, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State. 6. Mr. Mohanty would argue that the impugned order cannot be sustained for the reason that the burden of producing the lease case record was erroneously cast upon the petitioner even though such record is supposed to be maintained in the office of the concerned revenue authorities. In any case, the Tahasildar’s letter dated 04.05.2005 adequately proves that lease was granted in favour of the petitioner’s vendor and that the same was never cancelled. The vendor having sold the case land to the petitioner for his legal necessity by executing two sale deeds, the same was duly reflected in the draft ROR and Yadast. All these adequately prove the petitioner’s claim. The revisional Court has drawn adverse inference against the petitioner and gone further to hold that his claim is based on fraud without any basis whatsoever. 7. Per contra Mr. A.R. Dash, learned Addl. Government Advocate would submit that the claim of the petitioner is entirely based on the supposition that his vendor was a valid lessee. Since the relevant records/documents could not be produced, his claim has to be treated as unproved. According to Mr. Dash therefore, there is no infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8. After considering the rival submissions and on going through the pleadings and other materials on record, this Court finds that the fact that the land in question was leased out in favour of Radhu Nayak in WL Case No. 137/68-69 is not seriously disputed. The letter dated 04.05.2005, copy of which is available on record as Annexure-8, also supports the above fact. The said letter is reproduced below: “Office of the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar To Sri D.C. Mohanty, Advocate Sub- W.L. Case No. 137/1968-69 (Radhu Naik vrs. State) Sir, In response to your petition, I am to say that, the W.L. Case No. 137/68-69 is not readily available in this office. But upon perusal of Khata No. 140/72 of mouza- Bhola it is revealed that an area of Ac.1.000 pertaining to correction plot No.552/774 in mouza-Bhola was granted on lease to one Radhu Naik S/o Ishwar Naik of Bhola cast-Gopal vide order passed in W.L. Case No. 137/68-69 by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar. The said lease has not been cancelled till date. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar” 9. The petitioner has also enclosed a copy of the Yadast, where the aforesaid letter has been referred to and the fact of the property being leased out in favour of Radhu Nayak and of being sold thereafter to the petitioner has also been explicitly mentioned. Of course, the ROR was finally published in the name of the State. 10. In the counter affidavit, the following is stated in paragraph-4. “xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxOn claim of the petitioner with regard to recording of the land in his favour in Draft Khatian, it is submitted that in Form-309 (Janch Bother Form) it was noted that in Jamabandi No.149/62 the land in question was recorded in the name of Radhu Nayak son of Iswar Nayak in Pattadar status in Sabik Khata No. 140/72 consisting of Sabik Plot No. 552/774, Ac.0.62 decimals out of Ac.1.00 decimals. Sabik Plot No.552/774 corresponds to Hal Plot No. 814 and similarly Sabik Plot No.552/774 corresponds to Hal Plot No. 875. It is revealed from the above record that Debasis Mohanty, the present petitioner has been recorded in Pattadar status in draft ROR in respect of Hal Plot No. 219. In Objection Case No. 5811/575 of 2012 the case land has been recorded in Govt. Khata. This deponent has nothing to comment on other averments made in Para-1 of the writ petition which are matters of record.” 11. All these facts and records taken cumulatively fortify the claim of the petitioner. Though this Court, while remitting the matter had specifically directed the revisional Court to consider the effect of letter dated 04.05.2005 of the Tahasildar, yet the revisional Court has not rendered any finding in such respect. Obviously, the petitioner himself not being the lessee but a vendee under the lessee cannot be expected to produce the lease case record. The custodian of the lease case record is the Tahasildar, who expressed his inability to produce the same as it was untraceable. This Court fails to understand as to why the petitioner should be blamed for such inability of the Tahasildar. Therefore, drawing adverse inference by the revisional Court against the petitioner on such score appears to be entirely unjustified and unconscionable. 12. This Court is further surprised to find that the revisional Court has forayed into the question of fraud though the same does not appear to have been raised specifically before him on behalf of the State (Tahasildar). It is well-settled that fraud has to be specifically pleaded and proved. Fraud cannot be presumed. The relevant observations of the revisional Court are reproduced below. “In view of the foregoing examination of facts and records, it is thus clear that the petitioner has no valid title in support of his claims. I do not find any infirmity in the order of Settlement authorities in keeping the suit land in Government Khata. Rather, it is an attempt to grab Government land by misleading this revision court. If the petitioner’s case is to be considered in the absence of lease records, then vast acres of Government land, deity land, Jungle land and (common property resources) will be settled illegally. The petitioner has not approached this court with clean hands. This is a naked attempt to mislead the Hon’ble Court and commit the fraud by way of taking undue advantage as being a senior lawyer and suppress the fact. Fraud has been defined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as follows” “Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal” observed Chief Justice Edward Coke of England about three centuries ago. It is the settled proposition of law that a judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the court is a nullity and non-est in the eyes of law. Such a judgment/decree by the first court or by the highest court has to be treated as nullity by every court, whether superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any court even in collateral proceedings” “A “fraud” is an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of another. It is a deception in order to gain by another’s loss. It is cheating intended to get an advantage (See S.P. Changalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath (1994(1)SCC 1)” 13. This Court fails to understand as to on what basis the revisional Court arrived at such a conclusion casting aspirations on the petitioner. The further observation that “if the case is to be considered in the absence of the lease records, then vast acres of the government land xxxxxxx will be settled illegally” is entirely fallacious and speculative. Such so-called loyalty to the State appears to be unfounded. It goes without saying that each case has to be considered on its own merit. Such sweeping and general assumptions have no place in law as against hard facts. The revisional Court, instead of rendering a finding as regards acceptability or otherwise of the available documents including the letter of the Tahasildar referred above as directed by this Court in the earlier writ application, has digressed into non-issues. The impugned order cannot therefore, be sustained. 14. Having held so, ordinarily this Court would have remanded the matter for fresh consideration but then it is seen that the petitioner has been litigating since the year 2012 and has had to approach this Court twice earlier. Equitable considerations therefore, militate against further order of remand, more so as this Court finds that the available materials are sufficient to prove the claim of the petitioner over the case land. 15. For the foregoing reasons therefore, the writ application is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar is directed to make necessary changes in the ROR by recording the name of the petitioner in respect of the case land. The above order shall be carried out within two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order by the petitioner. ……..………………….. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, The 23rd April, 2026/ A.K. Rana, P.A. Designation: P.A.