Page 1 of 40

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.2870 of 2026, W.P.(C) No.2855 of 2026,

W.P.(C) No.2872 of 2026, W.P.(C) No.2873 of 2026,

W.P.(C) No.2877 of 2026, W.P.(C) No.2888 of 2026,

W.P.(C) No.2891 of 2026, W.P.(C) No.2894 of 2026,

W.P.(C) No.2898 of 2026, W.P.(C) No.2901 of 2026,

W.P.(C) No.7205 of 2026, W.P.(C) No.10334 of 2026,

W.P.(C) No.11376 of 2026, W.P.(C) No.11381 of 2025,

W.P.(C) No.11404 of 2026, W.P.(C) No.11448 of 2026,

W.P.(C) No.11453 of 2026, W.P.(C) No.11458 of 2026 &

W.P.(C) No.11462 of 2026

[Applications under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution

of India]

AFR W.P.(C) No. 2870, 2873 & 2888 of 2026

Gargi Dash …. Petitioner

-Versus-

State of Odisha & others ….. Opp. Parties

W.P.(C) No. 2855 & 7205 of 2026

Sonal Dash …. Petitioner

-Versus-

State of Odisha & others ….. Opp. Parties

W.P.(C) No. 2872, 2877, 2891 & 2901 of 2026

Aditya Dash …. Petitioner

-Versus-

State of Odisha & others ….. Opp. Parties

Page 2 of 40

W.P.(C) No. 2894 of 2026

Annapurna Dash …. Petitioner

-Versus-

State of Odisha & others ….. Opp. Parties

W.P.(C) No.2898 of 2026

Amarendra Dash …. Petitioner

-Versus-

State of Odisha & others ….. Opp. Parties

W.P.(C) No.10334 of 2026

Nirupama Dash @ Mishra …. Petitioner

-Versus-

State of Odisha & others ….. Opp. Parties

W.P.(C) No. 11376 of 2026

Dr. Pooja Dashmishra & Anr. …. Petitioners

-Versus-

State of Odisha & Anr. ….. Opp. Parties

W.P.(C) No. 11381 of 2026

Pulin Bihari Mohapatra …. Petitioner

-Versus-

State of Odisha & Anr. ….. Opp. Parties

W.P.(C) No. 11404 of 2026

Nrusingha Charan Mohanty …. Petitioner

-Versus-

State of Odisha & Anr. ….. Opp. Parties

Page 3 of 40

W.P.(C) No. 11448 of 2026

Padmaja Sahoo and Anr. …. Petitioners

-Versus-

State of Odisha & Anr. ….. Opp. Parties

W.P.(C) No. 11453 of 2026

Dipak Mohanty …. Petitioner

-Versus-

State of Odisha & Anr. ….. Opp. Parties

W.P.(C) No. 11458 of 2026

Susri Sangita Panda & Anr. …. Petitioners

-Versus-

State of Odisha & Anr. ….. Opp. Parties

W.P.(C) No. 11462 of 2026

Pramod Kumar Mohanty …. Petitioner

-Versus-

State of Odisha & Anr. ….. Opp. Parties

Advocate(s) appeared in these cases through virtual mode:

For Petitioner(s) : M/s. Debakanta Mohanty, A.K. Das

& S.K. Satapathy, Advocates.

[in W.P.(C) Nos. 2870, 2855, 2872,

2873, 2877, 2888, 2891, 2894,

2898, 2901 & 7205 of 2026]

Page 4 of 40

Mr. B.S. Tripathy Sr. Advocate with

M/s. Atul Tripathy & A. Sahoo,

Advocates.

[in W.P.(C) Nos. 11376, 11381,

11404, 11448, 11453, 11458 &

11462 of 2026]

M/s. A.P. Bose, D. Sahoo, D.K.

Sethy, A. Prasad, S. Samantaray, A.

Sahoo, M.K. Pradhan, A. Purohit &

R.R. Purohit, Advocates

[ in W.P.(C) No.10334 of 2026]

For Opp.Parties : Mr. S.N. Patnaik,

Addl. Government Advocate

Mrs. J. Sahoo,

Addl. Standing Counsel

_________________________________________________________

CORAM:

JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

JUDGMENT

22

nd

May, 2026

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

The correctness of change of nature of land of the

petitioners from ‘dakhal satwa sunya’ to ‘pattadar’ and the

claim of the petitioners for the same to be recorded as

sthitiban are questions involved in all these writ

applications. Since the facts and law involved are identical,

all these writ applications were heard together and are

Page 5 of 40

being disposed of by this common judgment. For brevity

and convenience however, the facts of W.P.(C) No. 2870 of

2026 shall be considered and referred to.

CASE OF THE PETITIONER

2. The petitioner, Gargi Dash is the recorded owner of

property covered under Plot No. 99/275/324 measuring

Ac.1.00 decs. and Plot No. 99/275/325 measuring area

Ac.1.00 decs. under Khata No.1155/103 in Tulasideipur

Mouza of Bhubaneswar Tahasil. Having purchased the

lands from the recorded owner, she got the same mutated

in her name as per order passed in Mutation Case Nos.

8868/1992 and 8867/1992 respectively. The nature of the

plots was also converted to homestead (gharabari) from

agriculture as per orders passed under Section 8-A of the

OLR Act in OLR Case No. 7028 of 2007. Accordingly, ROR

was issued in her favour by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar

mentioning the status as ‘dakhal satwa sunya’. According

to the petitioner, depiction of the status of the land as

above, is illegal as it ought to have been recorded as

Page 6 of 40

‘sthitiban’ in view of the ratio decided by this Court in the

case of Jagannath Sahu and others vs. State of Odisha

and others

1. However, the Government in an apparent

attempt to overreach the aforesaid judgment, issued a

notification on 02.07.2025, on the basis of which, the

Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar in a suo motu proceeding

changed the status of the lands in question from dakhal

satwa sunya to pattadar vide order passed in Misc. Case

No.10919 of 2025. This, according to the petitioner, is also

illegal in view of the ratio decided by this Court in the case

of Rinki Das @ Dhir vs State of Odisha and Others

2,

wherein it was held that the notification has no

retrospective effect so as to be applied to previously

published RORs. On such facts, the petitioner has

approached this Court seeking the following relief:

“The petitioner therefore, most humbly prays that

this Hon’ble Court would graciously be pleased to

admit this writ petition, call for the records and after

hearing the parties, allow the same by issuing a

writ/writs in the nature of certiorari/mandamus

declaring that the recording at Col. No.3 of the ROR

(Annexure-3) as Pattadar status is illegal and

similarly in the ROR (Annexure-1) as “Dakhal Satwa

1

W.P.(C) No. 15360 of 2024, decided on 02.05.2025

2

W.P.(C) No. 36211 of 2025, decided on 23.12.2025

Page 7 of 40

Sunya” status is also illegal, hence the Tahasildar,

Bhubaneswar be directed to correct such entry in the

ROR (Annexure-3) and issue Sthitiban Patta to the

petitioner in respect of the case land;

And pass any other or further direction as this

Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper;”

CASE OF THE STATE

3. The stand taken by the State as reflected in the

counter affidavit filed by opposite party Nos. 4 and 5 is that

originally, one Nabin Majhi, S/o- Bhajani Majhi was

granted lease of Government land corresponding to Plot

No.99/275/324 vide W.L. Case No.82/1973 for

agricultural purpose. Similarly, one Chhaya Bewa, wife of

Bharat Nayak was granted lease of plot No.99/275/325

vide WL Case No. 178/1988 for agricultural purpose. The

petitioner, Gargi Dash purchased both the lands from the

lessees and mutated the same in her favour vide Mutation

Case Nos.8868/1992 and 8867/1992. RoRs were issued

showing the status of the lands as ‘dakhal satwa sunya’

and not in ‘sthitiban’ status at any point of time in favour

of the lessee. It is further stated that the judgment in

Jagannath Sahu (supra) is not applicable to the facts of

Page 8 of 40

the present case. The Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar,

acting on the notification dated 02.07.2025 initiated suo

motu Misc. Case No. 10922/2025 and corrected the ROR

from dakhal satwa sunya to pattadar. The aforesaid

notification was issued by the State Government in

exercise of its sovereign and statutory powers to rectify the

illegality of recording leasehold lands wrongly as ‘dakhal

satwa sunya’ instead of ‘pattadar’. It is further stated that

the notification dated 02.07.2025 is not a retrospective

legislation but is a collective/clarificatory notification

aimed at rectifying wrongful recording of Government land.

Correcting an illegal entry in the ROR does not amount to

taking away an accrued right but only removes an illegal

benefit wrongly enjoyed by the petitioner. The error in the

ROR does not create title or status.

The petitioner has filed a rejoinder to the counter

affidavit. It is stated that recording of the status as ‘dakhal

satwa sunya’ in the ROR has been declared unlawful in

the case of Jagannath Sahu (supra). The present case

therefore, is squarely covered by such ratio. Moreover, the

Page 9 of 40

Government has complied with several orders passed by

this court in different cases and therefore, cannot take a

different stand. Having regard to the judgment rendered by

this Court in both Jagannath Sahu (supra) and Chandra

Prakash Rath vs. State of Odisha

3 it can be reasonably

concluded that neither the noting of status as ‘dakhal

satwa sunya’ nor ‘pattadar’ is sustainable in the eye of law

and hence, the land is to be recorded as sthitiban.

SUBMISSIONS

4. Heard Mr. Debakanta Mohanty, learned counsel for

the petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos. 2870, 2855, 2872, 2873,

2877, 2888, 2891, 2894, 2898, 2901 & 7205 of 2026, Mr.

B.S. Tripathy, learned Senior Counsel with Mr. Atul

Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C)

Nos.11376, 11381, 11404, 11448, 11453, 11458 & 11462

of 2026, Mr. A.P. Bose, learned counsel for the petitioner

in W.P.(C) No.10334 of 2026; Mr. S.N. Pattnaik, learned

Addl. Government Advocate and Mrs. J. Sahoo, learned

Addl. Standing Counsel for the State in all the cases.

3

W.P.(C) No.31150 of 2025 decided on 14.11.2025

Page 10 of 40

5. Considering the importance of the questions

involved, this Court requested Senior Counsel, Mr. B.

Bhuyan to assist the Court as amicus curiae. Another

Senior Counsel, Mr. S.S. Das, being present in Court also

rendered assistance. Both made their submissions

independently.

6. Mr. D. Mohanty would argue that the position of

law is well settled by the judgment passed in this Court in

the case of Jagannath Sahu (supra) and Chandra

Prakash Rath (supra). Referring to Jagannath Sahu

(supra), Mr. Mohanty submits that this Court categorically

held that the guidelines issued on 25.06.1990 titled ‘Rayati

Jami Record Kariba Pranali O Satwaa Satwa Niyamabali’

clearly provides that lands recorded under bajyaapti

sthitiban, dakhal satwa bisista or dakhal satwa sunya

status in undivided districts of Puri, Cuttack and Balasore

should be recorded under sthitiban status. Accordingly,

directions were issued. The petitioner unfortunately could

not approach this Court for a similar order individually.

The Government, on the other hand, came out with a

Page 11 of 40

notification dated 02.07.2025 only to nullify the above

referred judgment. Same was also interfered with by this

Court in Chandra Prakash Rath (supra). According to

Mr. Mohanty therefore, on a conjoint reading of both the

judgments rendered by this Court, it would be evident that

the status of the land has to be recorded as sthitiban and

not pattadar. Even otherwise, recording of the status as

sthitiban shall enure to the benefit of the State

Government, inasmuch as it would receive much more

revenue than from land recorded as ‘dakhal satwa sunya’.

It would thus, in no way prejudice the State. He further

submits that the petitioner’s complete ownership over the

land has been implicitly acknowledged by the State by

allowing conversion of its kisam from agriculture to

gharabari in a proceeding under Section 8-A of the Odisha

Land Reforms Act. Therefore, recording of the land as

‘dakhal satwa sunya’ or ‘pattadar’ would impinge her right

to alienate the property which would run contrary to the

order allowing conversion.

Page 12 of 40

7. Mr. B.S. Tripathy, learned Senior Counsel while

making similar arguments as Mr. D. Mohanty, additionally

refers to different provisions of the Odisha Tenancy Act,

1913, Odisha Land Reforms Act,1960, Odisha Government

Land Settlement Act, 1962 and Odisha Survey and

Settlement Act, 1958 to submit that the change of the

status of the land by the Tahasildar in a suo motu

proceeding behind the back of the petitioner is completely

illegal and contrary to the statutory provisions. On the

basis of statutory provisions, Mr. Tripathy would submit

that those categories of raiyats as defined under Section-4

of the Odisha Tenancy Act, 1913 are to be recorded under

raiyati status, which is heritable and transferable.

8. Mr. A.P. Bose, while supporting the submissions

advanced by Mr. D. Mohanty and Mr. B.S. Tripathy, would

submit that once the State authorities have recognized the

raiyati right by allowing mutation and conversion, it is no

longer open to the authorities to depict the status of the

land as ‘dakhal satwa sunya ’ or alter the same to

‘pattadar’. He also argues that entry in the ROR must

Page 13 of 40

reflect the true character of the land and cannot run

contrary to the rights already acknowledged by the State.

Referring to the decisions in Jagannath Sahu (supra) and

Chandra Prakash Rath (supra), Mr. Bose submits that

lands recorded under ‘dakhal satwa sunya’ status are to

be corrected as ‘sthitiban’. He further argues that the

notification dated 02.07.2025, being executive in nature,

cannot override binding judicial authorities nor can it

operate retrospectively so as to divest accrued rights or

alter entries already published in the R.O.R. According to

him, the suo motu alteration of the status of the land

without notice and opportunity of hearing is against the

principles of natural justice and the provisions governing

correction of R.O.R. Mr. Bose further submits that the

problem facing these persons is that because of depiction

of the status of land as dakhal satwa sunya and pattadar,

the registering authorities may not register any deed of sale

executed in respect of the same. This, according to Mr.

Bose amounts to placing undue restriction on the land

holder’s right over the property.

Page 14 of 40

9. Mr. S.N. Pattnaik, learned Addl. Government

Advocate and Mrs. J. Sahoo, learned Addl. Standing

Counsel for the State have both addressed the Court by

making the following submissions:

The case of the petitioners cannot be compared

with the facts of Jagannath Sahu (supra) and Chandra

Prakash Rath (supra). The most relevant factor is that the

land was never recorded in the name of the vendor or

lessee as ‘sthitiban’ during any settlement operation like

that of the petitioner in Jagannath Sahu (supra). The

Tahasildar has acted entirely on the basis of the

Government notification dated 02.07.2025, which seeks to

correct the error caused by the previous notification and

has not been interfered with. It is stated that the

notification dated 28.01.2021 caused a lot of confusion

among the field level officers, who wrongly recorded lands

under ‘dakhal satwa sunya’ status as ‘sthitiban’. This is

contrary to paragraph-23 of the Niyamabali. For such

purpose, the subsequent notification dated 02.07.2025 was

issued with a view to rectify the error. Since the land is a

Page 15 of 40

leasehold land, it can only be recorded as pattadar and not

sthitiban under any circumstances.

10. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. S.S. Das argues that

the letters dated 28.01.2021 and 02.07.2025 are inter-

office communications having no force of law within the

meaning of Article 13 of the Constitution of India. As such,

they cannot take away accrued or vested right of the

citizens. Prior to amendment of Section 8-A of the OLR Act,

even a sthitiban property could be recorded as pattadar but

the same is no longer permissible in view of repeal of the

earlier provision. On the other hand, leasehold status can

be converted to sthitiban. Mr. Das therefore, submits that

the authorities have apparently misconstrued the statutory

provisions to take away valuable rights of land owners, like

the petitioners. Moreover, the term ‘pattadar’ inherently

means a person in whose favour a ‘patta’ or ROR has been

issued and therefore, cannot or should not be treated as

depiction of the leasehold status.

Page 16 of 40

11. Learned amicus curiae, Mr. B. Bhuyan refers to the

provisions of Odisha Tenancy Act, 1913 Odisha Land

Reforms Act,1960 OGLS Act, 1962 and Transfer of Property

Act, 1882. He also refers to the Dalziel Report of Final

Settlement in course of his argument. He submits that if

the legislative intent behind these statutory provisions are

to be considered, it would be seen that the same is to

confer on the land owner both heritable and transferable

rights. He, therefore, submits that there is no statutory

recognition of conversion of the status to pattadar as

against sthitiban. Therefore, the authorities should record

the land of the lessee or his transferee either in raiyati or

sthitiban status.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

12. From the rival contentions noted above, it is

evident that the dispute revolves around recording of the

status of the land in the record of right. Be it noted that

the status of the land is termed ‘satwa’ in Odia. Lands can

be classified into different satwas, such as sthitiban,

Page 17 of 40

bajyapati sthitiban, dakhal satwa bisista, dakhal satwa

sunya etc. Of these, dakhal satwa sunya, sthitiban and

pattadar are relevant in the present context. In the ‘Final

Report on the Revision Settlement of Orissa (1922-1932

AD)’ by W.W. Dalziel, ICS these terms are defined in the

Glossary in Appendix XXVIII as follows:

“Dakhal satwa sunya – Status of non-occupancy raiyat”

Dakhal satwa bisista- Status of an occupancy raiyat

Sthitiban- Status of settled raiyat.”

13. As per the Revenue Dictionary (M.M. Publications),

‘dakhal satwa sunya’ means:

“Non-occupancy raiyat, including the persons who

have gained possession of the land through lease

or otherwise, but are yet to acquire the status of

the settled raiyat.”

[Emphasis added]

Sthitiban, as per the dictionary means:

“A cultivator who has acquired the right to hold the

land for the purpose of agriculture and has become

a settled raiyat of the village in which the land

stands, by virtue of holding any land in that village

for a period of 12 years continuously; has acquired

a permanent right on the land alongwith the rights

of heritability and transferability and other benefits,

as assigned to such a raiyat under the provisions of

Orissa Tenancy Laws.”

Page 18 of 40

So, the basic difference between sthitiban and dakhal

satwa sunya is of occupation. The right of non-occupancy

raiyats are inferior to that of occupancy raiyats. It follows

that permanent right over the land, including the right of

heritability and transferability, to an occupancy raiyat

(sthitiban) is ordinarily not available to a non-occupancy

raiyat (dakhal satwa sunya). This is also the settled

position of law. Reference in this regard can be made to the

judgment of this Court in the case of Chandrakanta Pani

vs. Kamalalochan Pani and others

4, where, the following

was held:

“7. It is also well established that non-occupancy

rights or under-raiyat rights are neither heritable nor

transferable except by custom (vide in cases of G.

Gurumurty v. State reported in (1967) 33 Cut LT

1128 (1134) (AIR 1968 Orissa 72); Biseswar Giri v.

Hara Prasad Behera reported in AIR 1967 Orissa 86

and Bhikari Bhoi v. Jagannath Mohapatra reported

in (1961) 3 Orissa JD 331). The lessees under

Exhibit 5 were mere non-occupancy tenants and

such rights, in the absence of custom of which there

is neither any allegation nor proof, could not be

alienated in favour of defendants 5 and 6 under

Exhibit 4, registered sale deed dated 14-2-1955 and

Exhibit 2, deed of relinquishment dated 25-3-1959.

Thus defendants 5 and 6 having had no occupancy

right to convey and there being non-recipients of any

non -occupancy tenancy right which is

nontransferable, the plaintiff acquired no interest

4

1972 SCC OnLine Ori 91: AIR 1973 ORI 65

Page 19 of 40

from them under Exhibit 3, registered sale deed

dated 27-4-1959.”

14. Pattadar, on the other hand, means a lessee of

resumed pre-settlement inams on written leases and also

lessee of khasmahal lands. So, basically the term ‘pattadar’

refers to leasehold lands.

15. We may now refer to certain statutory provisions

governing the field. The earliest enactment in this context,

being the Odisha Tenancy Act, 1913, it would be profitable

to examine some of the provisions contained therein.

Section 3(23) defines ‘tenant’ to mean, a person who holds

land under another person, and is, or but for a special

contract would be, liable to pay rent for that land to that

person. Chapter-II of the said Act, deals with classes of

tenants. Section-4 is reproduced below:

“4. Classes of tenants. - There shall be, for the

purpose of this Act, the following classes of tenants,

namely:

(1) tenure-holders, including under-tenure-holders,

(2) raiyats,

(3) under-raiyats, that is to say, tenants holding,

whether immediately, or mediately, under raiyats,

and

Page 20 of 40

(4) chandnadars; and the following classes of

raiyats, namely;

(a)raiyats holding at fixed rates, which expression

means raiyats holding either at a rent fixed in

perpetuity or at a rate of rent fixed in perpetuity,

(b)occupancy-raiyats, that is to say, raiyats having a

right of occupancy in the land held by them, and

(c)non-occupancy-raiyats, that is to say, raiyats not

having such a right of occupancy”

It can be easily inferred that the term ‘tenant’ is the genus

while ‘raiyat’ is the species. It also makes a distinction

between occupancy and non-occupancy raiyats. The term

‘raiyat’ has further been defined under Section 5(2) as

follows:

“Raiyat” means primarily a person who has acquired

a right to hold land for the purpose of cultivating it

by himself, or by members of his family or by hired

servants, or with the aid of partners, and includes

also the successors-in-interest or persons who have

acquired such a right.”

There is a further concept of ‘settled raiyat’. Section 23

defines it in the following manner:

“23. Definition of 'Settled raiyat'.

(1) Every person who, for a period of twelve years

whether wholly or partly before or after the

commencement of this Act, has continuously held as

a raiyat land situate in any village, whether under a

lease or otherwise, shall be deemed to have become,

on the expiration of that period, a settled raiyat of

that village.

Page 21 of 40

(2) A person shall be deemed, for the purposes of

this Section, to have continuously held land in a

village, notwithstanding that the particular land held

by him has been different at different times.

(3) A person shall be deemed, for the purpose of this

Section, to have held as a raiyat any land held as a

raiyat by person whose heir he is.

(4) Land held by two or more co-sharers as a raiyati

holding shall be deemed, for the purpose of this

Section, to have been held as a raiyat by each such

co-sharer.

(5) A person shall continue to be a settled raiyat of a

village as long as he holds any land as a raiyat in

that village and for one year thereafter.

(6) If a raiyat recovers possession of land under

Section 98, he shall be deemed to have continued to

be a settled raiyat, notwithstanding his having been

out of. possession more than a year.

(7) If, any suit or other proceeding under this Act, or

under any other law, it is proved or admitted that a

person holds any land as a raiyat, it shall, as

between him and the landlord under whom he holds

the land, be presumed, for the purpose of this

Section until the contrary is proved or admitted, that

he had for twelve years continuously held that land

or some part of it as raiyat.”

[Emphasis added]

In view of sub-section (1), even a person holding land

under a lease could become a settled raiyat on the

fulfilment of the conditions laid down therein.

16. Section 24 provides that settled raiyats have

occupancy right. A person holding land under a lease can

Page 22 of 40

also become a settled raiyat thereby, acquiring a superior

right.

17. We may now refer to the provisions of Odisha Land

Reforms Act, 1960. The Odisha Land Reforms Act was

enacted in the year 1960 as an Act to reform the law

relating to land tenures and to provide for matters

connected therewith or incidental thereto. It is stated to be

a progressive legislation relating to agrarian reforms and

land tenures. Section 2 (26) defines ‘raiyat’, as a person

who is deemed to be a raiyat as such under the provisions

of this Act. Section 2(31) defines ‘tenant’ as follows:

“(31) ‘tenant’ means a person who has no rights in

the land of another but under the system generally

known as Bhag, Sanja or Kata or such similar

expression as under any other system, law, contract,

custom or usage personally cultivates such land on

payment of rent in cash or in kind or in both or on

condition of delivery to that person –

(a) either a share of the produce of such land; or

(b) the estimated value of a portion of the crop

raised on the land, or

(c) a fixed quantity of produce irrespective of the

yield from the land; or

(d) produce or its estimated value partly in any of the

ways described above and partly in another”

Page 23 of 40

Evidently, there is a world of difference between the

definition of tenant under the Odisha Tenancy Act and the

Odisha Land Reforms Act. Under the latter Act, the

position of tenant is less comprehensive and inferior to that

under the former.

18. Section 4 defines ‘raiyats’. Clause (f) of sub-Section

(1) reads as follows:

“a person with whom land has been settled for

agricultural purposes after the commencement of this

Act under a lease from land-holder, or under

permanent lease from Government.”

[Emphasis added]

Section 6 deals with rights of raiyats and is reproduced

below:

“6. Rights of raiyats and prohibition of letting –

(1) The rights of a raiyat in any land held by him as

such shall be permanent, heritable and transferable.

(2) Notwithstanding anything in sub-section (I) but

subject to the provisions of sub-section (3) a transfer

after the commencement of this Act by way of a

lease of any land held by a raiyat shall be void and

inoperative.

(3) It shall be lawful for a raiyat who is a person

under disability or is a privileged raiyat to lease out

his lands to any tenant.”

[Emphasis added]

Page 24 of 40

An exception is carved out in Section 6-A, which is

reproduced below:

“6-A.Temporary ban on transfer of land settled

by Government- (1) Notwithstanding anything

contained in sub-section (1) of section 6, but subject

to the provisions of sub-section (3) thereof, any

transfer by a raiyat of any land which has been

settled with him for agricultural purposes under a

permanent lease from Government shall, if such

transfer is made within a period of ten years from

the date of such settlement without obtaining the

previous permission in writing of the Revenue

Officer, be void.

(2) No right, title or interest held by a raiyat in any

such land as aforesaid shall, unless permission in

writing is accorded by the Revenue Officer to that

effect, be attached and sold in execution of a money

decree passed against such raiyat.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other

law for the time being in force, where any document

required to be registered under the provisions of

clause (a) to clause (e) of sub-section (1) of section

17 of the Registration Act, 1908 purports to transfer

any such land within the period specified in sub-

section (1), no registering officer appointed under

that Act shall register any such document unless

such document is accompanied by the written

permission of the Revenue Officer for such transfer.

(4) Nothing in sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) shall

apply to any transfer by way of mortgage executed

in fovour of any scheduled bank or in favour of any

bank to which the Orissa Co-operative Societies Act,

1962 applies and nothing in sub-section (2) shall

apply to a money decree obtained by any such

bank.”

Therefore, even a lessee can transfer the leasehold land

after expiry of ten years from the date of lease without

Page 25 of 40

obtaining permission. Section-7, though not entirely

relevant, yet may be referred to point out the distinction

between the right of a tenant and that of a raiyat. The right

of raiyat is covered under Section 6 and 6-A referred above.

Section 7, refers to the right of tenant and is reproduced

below:

“7. Non-transferability and saving of the rights

and liabilities of tenants – (1) The rights of a

tenant in any land held by him as such shall be

heritable, but shall not be transferable.

(2) Save as otherwise provided in this Act –

(a) no tenant in lawful cultivation of any land at the

commencement of the Orissa Land Reforms

(Amendment) Act, 1973 or at any time thereafter

shall be liable to be evicted from such land by the

landlord;

(b) no such tenant shall be bound to pay rent at a

rate higher than the rate specified in section 13; and

(c) the rights, benefits, protection, privileges,

obligations or liabilities of any tenant in lawful

cultivation of any land at the commencement of the

Orissa Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1973 as

were existing immediately prior to such

commencement shall not be liable to be modified or

extinguished in any manner whatsoever.”

Thus, the right of a tenant in any land held by him shall be

heritable but not transferable. This is the essential

distinction between a tenant and a raiyat under the Odisha

Land Reforms Act as compared to the Odisha Tenancy Act.

Page 26 of 40

It may also be mentioned in passing that the Act permits

conversion of agricultural land for purposes other than

agriculture in the manner laid down in Section 8-A.

Needless to mention, in view of the Section 3, this Act shall

override all other enactments to the extent of any

inconsistency or repugnancy and hence, the relevant

provisions of the Odisha Tenancy Act shall no longer have

any effect.

19. The next enactment to be considered is the Odisha

Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 (in short, the

‘OGLS Act’). Section-3 empowers the Government to settle

Government land. Clause (a) of sub-Section (4) along with

its explanation is reproduced below:

“(4) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary

contained in the preceding subsections or in any law

or any custom, practice or usage having the force of

law-

(a) any land of the category of Khasamahal, Nazul,

Gramkantha Parambok or Abadi, wherever situated

and used for any purpose, may, on application, be

permanently settled with heritable and transferable

right with the person who is in occupation of such

land either on the basis of lease or otherwise for a

period of at least three years prior to the appointed

date, in such manner and subject to payment of such

amount to the Government as may be prescribed;

Page 27 of 40

Explanation :– The word ‘lease’ includes sub-lease or

subsequent lease by the lessee or the sub-lessee, as

the case may be.”

Thus, even if a land (of the categories referred to) is settled

on the basis of lease, it can be permanently settled with the

lessee with heritable and transferable right. Further, Rule-

5-C of the OGLS Rules permits conversion of leasehold

land into freehold on permanent basis with hereditable and

transferable rights in urban areas of the State.

20. On a conjoint reading of the provisions of all the

statutory enactments referred above, it can be reasonably

inferred that the legislative intent, in so far as permanent

land holdings are concerned is to allow such lands to be

held with full rights of occupancy, along with right of

heritability and transferability. This seems to have been

implicitly acknowledged by the State Government also as

reflected in the set of guidelines called, “Rayati Jami Record

Kariba Pranali O Satwaa Satwa Niyamabali in 1990 (in

short, ‘1990 Niyamabali’):

Page 28 of 40

ରାଯାଇଛି, ତା ୁ ରୟତ ରବାଲି ଧରିବା ୁ ପଡିବ । ଉ
= ଆଇନ ର 24 ଧାରା

ଜମା” ଭୃ ତି ନାମରର ଦରଜ ରାଯାଇଛି ।

This is loosely translated as follows:

“Under Section 6(ii) of the Odisha Tenancy Act,

1913, if in any Record-of-Rights a person has been

recorded as a Bajyaptidar or Bajyaptidar Raiyat,

he shall be deemed to be a raiyat. Under Section

24 of the said Act, a settled raiyat shall have

occupancy rights over the land cultivated by him.

Under Section 4 of the said Act, raiyats are of

three categories, namely: permanent tenure

raiyats, occupancy raiyats, and non-occupancy

raiyats. In some places, permanent tenure raiyats

have been recorded under descriptions such as

‘permanent tenure holder’, ‘Bahel permanent

tenure’, etc.

The lands recorded under the above-

mentioned Bajyapti settled, occupancy, and non-

occupancy tenures shall, during settlement

operations, be recorded as settled tenancy in the

districts of Puri, Cuttack, and Balasore. If such

tenures are found in any other area, they shall be

recorded as raiyati tenancy.”

This process of recording dakhal satwa sunya lands as

sthitiban appears to have been followed or intended to be

followed since then. However, certain deviations being

Page 29 of 40

noticed in some Tahasils, the Government, by letter dated

28.01.2021 disapproved the practice of recording the lands

in dakhal satwa bisista and dakhal satwa sunya status as

against sthitiban status. Instructions were therefore, issued

to the field officers for proper recording of the land in light

of the 1990 Niyamabali.

21. A coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of

Jagannath Sahu (supra) had the occasion of dealing with

the effect of letter dated 28.01.2021. After taking note of

1990 Niyamabali, the Court observed as follows:

“10. On perusal of the Guidelines/Instructions,

namely, ‘Rayati Jami Record Kariba Pranali O

Satwaa Satwa Niyamabali’, i.e., procedure to record

rayati land and regulations regarding status of the

land, it clearly indicates that the said

Instructions/Guidelines were issued in terms of

Memorandum No.29854 dated 25 th June, 1990,

which dealt with recording of Government land. At

para-23 of the said Guidelines/Instructions, it is

clearly stated that as per Section 4 of the Odisha

Tenancy Act, 1913, Rayats are of three categories,

namely, ‘Charastyee Jama Rayat’, ‘Dakhal Satwa

Bisista Rayat’ and ‘Dakhal Satwa Sunya Rayat’. It

is also stated at para-23 in some places ‘Stithiban

Rayat’ are recorded as ‘Charastyee Jama Bisista’

and ‘Bahel Charastyee Jama’ etc. In all such cases,

the land which are recorded under ‘Bajyapti

Stithiban’, ‘Dakhal Satwa Bisista’ or ‘Dakhal Satwa

Sunya’ during settlement proceeding in the

undivided districts of Puri, Cuttack and Balasore

should be recorded under ‘Stithiban’ status. Thus, in

Page 30 of 40

para-23 of the Guidelines, it is stated in clear terms

that if the lands are settled under the provisions of

the Odisha Tenancy Act, 1913 under ‘Bajyapti

Stitiban’, ‘Dakhal Satwa Bisista’ or ‘Dakhal Satwa

Sunya’ status should be recorded under the ‘Raiyati’

status, as alleged in the counter affidavit and

submitted by Mr. Mishra, learned ASC. On a close

reading of the aforesaid Guidelines, it clearly

emanates that during settlement operation, if a land

has been recorded under ‘Bajyapti Stitiban’, ‘Dakhal

Satwa Bisista’ or ‘Dakhal Satwa Sunya’ status, the

same should be recorded under ‘Stithiban’ status in

undivided districts of Puri, Cuttack and Balasore. In

rest of the areas of State of Odisha, it should be

recorded under ‘Raiyati’ status. Nowhere in the said

Guidelines, it is stated that if the land is settled

under Odisha Tenancy Act, 1913 under ‘Bajyapti

Stitiban’/‘Dakhal Satwa Bisista’/‘Dakhal Satwa

Sunya’ status, then it will be recorded under

‘Stithiban’ status. It appears that the Tahasildar,

Bhubaneswar has misread the instructions imparted

at para-23 of the Guidelines.”

22. Observing thus, this Court directed the concerned

Tahasildar to consider recording the land under sthitiban

status by changing the entry in the status of case land

from dakhal satwa sunya to sthitiban. It is stated at the

bar that basing on the above judgment, several RORs have

since been corrected appropriately.

23. At this stage, the Government issued two

purportedly clarificatory letters superseding the letter

dated 28.01.2021. By letter dated 19.06.2025, it was held

that only lease granted for agricultural purpose can be

Page 31 of 40

recorded as sthitiban/raiyati status but those granted for

non-agricultural purposes to various organisations,

industrial, commercial and public sector undertakings,

corporations, local authorities and entrepreneurs etc. shall

be recorded as ‘pattadar’ and not ‘sthitiban’. This letter was

followed by letter dated 02.07.2025, wherein it was held

that the earlier letter dated 28.01.2021 does not specify

which RORs are subject to change from ‘dakhal satwa

sunya’ to ‘sthitiban’. Accordingly, said letter was withdrawn

and the following directions were issued.

“1. After publication of the RoR (Record of Right), if

any RoR was prepared by the Tahasildar or any

Revenue Authority basing on lease of Government

land with "swatwa" recorded as "Dakhal Swatwa

Sunya", it shall henceforth be changed to "Pattadar"

in the existing RoR.

2. Further, changes already effected basing upon the

letter dated 28.01.2021, altering the "swatwa" from

"Dakhal Swatwa Sunya" to "Sthitiban" or any other

"Swatwa" in the RoR prepared by the Tahasildars or

any Revenue Authority while settling the

Government land on lease shall be recorded under

"Pattadar" status. This exercise should be completed

within a month and compliance should be submitted

by all the Collectors.

3. Any RoR framed and published under OT Act,

1913 by the Settlement Authority having been

recorded with "Swatwa" as "Bajyapti Sthitiban"

"Dakhal Swatwa Sunya" "Dakhal Swatwa Bisista"

shall be dealt in accordance with Paragraph 23 of

Page 32 of 40

the said instruction titled "Rayati Jami Record

Kariba Pranali O Satwaa Satwa Niyamabali"

This letter was the subject matter of challenge

before this Court in the case of Chandra Prakash Rath

(supra). After analysing the law relating to prospective

application of executive instructions, this Court held that

ROR of the petitioner therein could not have been corrected

to pattadar status basing on the letter dated 02.07.2025 as

the status had already been corrected from ‘dakhal Satwa

sunya’ to sthitiban prior to issuance of the same.

24. As regards applicability of the letters referred to

hereinbefore, there can be no doubt that they cannot be

treated as ‘Law’ within the meaning of Article 13 of the

Constitution of India so as to have any binding force. Of

course, this Court is conscious of the fact that the same

principle would also apply to the 1990 Niyamabali as it

lacks statutory force, but then, according to this Court, an

administrative order/ executive instructions, even if not

issued under Article 162 of the Constitution, can still be

relied upon/acted upon, if it has stood the test of time,

Page 33 of 40

more so, if the same is based on or reflects the statutory

intent.

25. It is not the case of the State that the 1990

Niyamabali is, in any manner, contrary to law rather, it is

its specific case that 1990 Niyamabali ought to be followed.

As already held in Jagannath Sahu (supra) there is

nothing in the 1990 Niyamabali laying down that only if a

land is recorded in dakhal satwa sunya as per the

provisions of Odisha Tenancy Act, same can be recorded as

sthitiban during settlement operations. Even assuming the

opposite for the sake of argument, as already stated, after

coming into force of the Odisha Land Reforms Act, the

provisions of the Odisha Tenancy Act relating to ‘tenants’

and ‘raiyats’ would have no application.

26. The net effect of recording of the status as ‘dakhal

satwa sunya’, as already stated, would be to render it non-

transferable. This is akin to placing restrictions on the

right of the land owner. To such extent, the land owner

must be deemed to be deprived of exercising full right over

Page 34 of 40

his property. It must be kept in mind that said right is

guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution, which

is reproduced below:

“Persons not be deprived of property save by

authority of law, - No person shall be deprived of

his property save by authority of law.”

27. It is well settled that the right to property is no

longer a fundamental right, but still, it is a constitutional

right. Apart from constitutional right it is also a human

right. A procedure laid down for deprivation thereof must

be scrupulously complied with. Reference may be had to

the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of

Vimlaben Ajitbhai Patel v. Vatslaben Ashokbhai Patel

5

.

This view has been reiterated in Hari Krishna Mandir

Trust v. State of Maharashtra

6, wherein the Supreme

Court held as follows:

“96. The right to property may not be a fundamental

right any longer, but it is still a constitutional right

under Article 300-A and a human right as observed by

this Court in Vimlaben Ajitbhai Patel v. Vatslaben

Ashokbhai Patel. In view of the mandate of Article

300-A of the Constitution of India, no person is to be

deprived of his property save by the authority of law.

5

(2008) 4 SCC 649

6

(2020) 9 SCC 356

Page 35 of 40

The appellant Trust cannot be deprived of its property

save in accordance with law.”

28. It would be interesting to note that while resisting

the claim of the petitioner as regards the status of the land,

the authorities, on the other hand, have allowed his claim

for conversion in respect of the nature (kisam) of the land.

The petitioner’s application under Section 8-A of the OLR

Act was allowed thereby converting the nature of the land

from agriculture to household (gharabari). This, by itself,

suggests that the land has lost its character of a leasehold

property.

29. Before parting, this Court, having seen the

legislative intent as reflected in the various statutory

provisions referred to in this judgment, observes that terms

such as ‘dakhal satwa sunya’, ‘dakhal satwa bisista’,

‘chirasthayee jama raiyat’, ‘chirasthayee jama bisista’,

‘bahel chirasthayee jama’ etc are all pre-vesting terms that

really do not have any relevance in the post-vesting era,

particularly after coming into force of the OLR Act. In fact,

none of the post-vesting legislations makes any reference to

Page 36 of 40

them. At this stage, it would be useful to refer to the Dalziel

Report again. Under Chapter IV titled, ‘The Record of

Rights’ the following is mentioned under Paragraph-56.:

“56. Raiyati statuses – The simplification of status

entries was particularly applied to those of raiyati

holdings. I quote the attestation rule from the rules

published in 1927 which were in turn based on the

rules in force before that: - “In this record only five

terms will be used for raiyats as follows: -

(a) Chirasthayi jama, raiyats at fixed rents (in P.S.

estates).

(b) Sthitiban, settled raiyats.

(c) Dakhal satwa bisista, occupancy raiyats who are

not settled raiyats.

(d) Dakhal satwa sunya, non-occupancy raiyats.

(e) Bajyafti sthitiban or bajyafti dakhal satwa

bisista.”

For the guidance of the Attestation Officers it was also

laid down that “the following statuses found in the

Revision Settlement will now be recorded as sthitiban-

xxxxx. These old statuses were not considered worth

retaining as they all come within the category of

settled raiyats under the Tenancy Act.”

The point is, even as early as in 1922-1932, the

need to simplify the recording of status of land was felt

expedient and in fact, was given effect to.

30. The 1990 Niyamabali, though not law, must be

understood in the above context. It seeks to rationalize

these terms by suggesting recording of these lands as

‘sthitiban’ or ‘raiyat’ as the case may be, so as to bring

Page 37 of 40

them in sync with the prevalent statutory scheme. This will

remove confusion by correctly depicting the status and

nature of the land. Simplifying the process shall enure to

the benefit of all concerned. On the other hand, insisting

upon pre-colonial and colonial modes of depiction of status

of land in the RoRs can only be regressive and thereby, run

contrary to the intent of the post-colonial statutes like the

OLR Act.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS:

31. Having regard to the foregoing narration, this Court

summarizes its findings/conclusions as follows:

(i) A person holding land in lease being a raiyat

within the meaning of Section 4(1)(f) of OLR Act is

entitled to hold such land with permanent,

heritable and transferable rights as per Section 6

of the OLR Act subject to limitations imposed

under Section 6-A.

(ii) The 1990 Niyamabali implicitly acknowledges the

above right as reflected in paragraph-23 thereof.

Page 38 of 40

(iii) As already held in Jagannath Sahu (supra),

paragraph-23 of the Niyamabali does not place any

restriction for recording of the status of such land

as sthitiban.

(iv) The land of the petitioner was originally settled

under a valid lease which was never resumed or

cancelled.

(v) The lessee validly transferred the land in favour of

the petitioner which has never been questioned.

(vi) The nature of the land has been converted from

agriculture to homestead thereby implicitly

acknowledging occupancy status of the land

holder.

(vii) Recording of the land as pattadar at this belated

stage would amount to turning the clock back,

which in turn would be contrary to the order of

conversion.

Page 39 of 40

32. Having regard to the findings/conclusions arrived

at as mentioned in the preceding paragraph, this Court has

no hesitation in holding that the impugned orders cannot

be sustained in the eye of law. This Court further holds

that the nature of the land needs to be recorded as

sthitiban instead of either pattadar or dakhal satwa sunya.

Of course, this order shall not be construed to have been

made in respect of lease granted for non-agricultural

purposes, such as, industrial, commercial etc. as

mentioned in letter dated 19.06.2025.

33. In the result, the writ applications are allowed. The

impugned orders passed by the Tahasildar in the suo motu

proceeding changing the satwa to pattadar is set aside. The

concerned Tahasildar(s) is directed to issue ROR in respect

of the petitioners depicting the nature of the holding as

sthitiban. Necessary orders in this regard shall be passed

within six weeks from today.

34. This Court places on record its deep appreciation

for the able assistance rendered by Mr. S.S. Das, learned

Page 40 of 40

Senior Counsel and the amicus curiae, Mr. B. Bhuyan,

learned Senior Counsel in adjudication of the lis.

………….……………. ..

Sashikanta Mishra,

Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack

The 22

nd May, 2026/ A.K. Rana, P.A.