Page 1 of 18

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.19010 of 2010

(An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of

India)

---------------

Urmila Ray ...… Petitioner

-Versus-

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

Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-

______________________________________________________

For Petitioner : Mr. Samar Bahadur, Advocate

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

[Addl. Government Advocate]

Mr. Suraj Mohanty, Advocate

[For O.P. Nos.6 and 7]

___________________________________________

CORAM:

JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

JUDGMENT

31

st

March, 2026

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

In the present writ application, the petitioner

questions the correctness of order dated 22.09.2010 passed

Page 2 of 18

by the Additional District Magistrate (ADM), Sundargarh in

Revenue Appeal No.23 of 2002.

2. The facts of the case are that one Nanku Ray, father-

in-law of the original petitioner Urmila Ray, purchased the

suit land from its recorded owner Sridhar Dalai, the

ancestor of present Opposite Party Nos.6 and 7 in January,

1950. After due enquiry, the revenue authorities recorded

the land in his name in the Record of Rights. After death of

her father-in-law, the land was recorded in her name. The

private Opposite Parties initiated a case against the

petitioner being Regulation Case No.144 of 1977 under the

provisions of Regulation-II of 1956 before the SDO, Bonai to

evict the petitioner from the land. After due enquiry, said

proceeding was dropped. The private Opposite Parties again

filed an application under the provisions of Regulation-II

vide Regulation Case No.1 of 1995 seeking eviction of the

petitioner from the suit land and restoration of the land in

their favour. Said case was filed on the ground that the

private Opposite Parties belong to the Schedule Tribe

Community and without permission of the authority the

Page 3 of 18

land had been illegally transferred to the father-in-law of

the petitioner. According to the petitioner, her father-in-law

had purchased the land by way of oral purchase in the year

1950 by paying the consideration money and took delivery

of possession. During Hal Settlement, the land was

recorded in her father-in-law’s name. In the year 1975,

Nanku Ray gifted the suit land in favour of the petitioner

vide Registered Gift Deed No.375 dated 28.01.1979 and

since then, the petitioner is in his possession and paying

rent regularly. Considering such facts and documents, the

authorities recorded the name of the petitioner in the ROR.

The Sub-Collector, Bonai without granting

opportunity of hearing to the petitioner passed an order for

her eviction on 12.05.1987 against which the petitioner

filed Revenue Appeal No.10 of 1987 before the A.D.M.,

Sundargarh. The appeal was allowed and the case was

remanded for fresh hearing. The Sub-Collector, in his order

dated 12.04.2002 upheld his earlier order of eviction,

against which the petitioner preferred Revenue Appeal

No.23 of 2002. By order dated 25.02.2004, the A.D.M

Page 4 of 18

dismissed the appeal. The petitioner approached this Court

in W.P.(C) No.448 of 2004. This Court, by order dated

14.03.2007 remanded the matter to the A.D.M for fresh

hearing and to determine the question whether the land in

question situates in Merged States and whether the

provisions of the Merged State Laws are applicable. The

A.D.M however, again dismissed the appeal upholding the

order of eviction by order dated 22.09.2010. Said order is

impugned in the present writ application.

According to the petitioner, the impugned order is

contrary to the documentary evidence on record, such as

Yadast Report of 1963, Amin ’s Report of 1967 and

Munsarim’s Mistake List countersigned by the Assistant

Settlement Officer to show that the father-in-law of the

petitioner after purchasing the land in 1950 was in

possession thereof. The Record of Rights and rent receipts

also prove the said fact. It is also contended that the

petitioner’s father-in-law having purchased the land in

January, 1950, that is, before coming into force of the

Merged State Laws, its provisions are not applicable. On

Page 5 of 18

such facts, the petitioner prays for quashment of the

impugned order.

3. The case of the State-Opposite Parties (O.P. Nos.2 and

3) as revealed from the counter affidavit filed by them is

that the burden is on the petitioner to prove her stand with

authentic documents showing the said transaction to have

been made in the year 1950, which she could not

discharge. Since the original transaction made prior to

1975 was illegal and the Settlement Authority had illegally

mutated the land in the name of Nanku Ray, all

subsequent transactions have to be treated as null and

void. The impugned order is passed in conformity with the

provisions of Odisha Merged State Laws Act, 1950 and

Regulation-II of 1956.

The petitioner has relied upon the Yadast Report and

Amin’s Report etc. but the finding of the Settlement

Authority, in the absence of actual sale deed are not

binding on the Sub-Collector and A.D.M. Moreover, in the

appeal petition, it was admitted that the land was

purchased in the year 1951.

Page 6 of 18

4. Though the private Opposite Party Nos.6 and 7

entered appearance and they did not file any counter.

5. Be it noted that the present writ application was

heard and finally disposed of vide judgment dated

01.11.2016 by quashing the impugned order. Said order

was challenged in intra-Court appeal being W.A. No.528 of

2016. By order dated 16.01.2023, a Division Bench set

aside the order passed by the Single Judge and restored the

writ application for hearing afresh.

6. Heard Mr. Samar Bahadur, learned counsel for the

petitioner; Mr. S.N. Patnaik, learned Additional Government

Advocate for the State and Mr. Suraj Mohanty, learned

counsel appearing for Opposite Party Nos.6 and 7.

7. Mr. Bahadur assails the impugned order on the

following grounds:-

i. The transaction in question is of the year 1950. As per

Section 7-D of Odisha Regulation-II of 1956, any

alienation of land by a Schedule Tribe to a member of

the non-Schedule Tribe can be challenged within thirty

years. The Regulation-II case having been filed in the

Page 7 of 18

year 1995 is therefore, grossly barred by limitation. Mr.

Bahadur has cited a judgment of this Court in the

Laxmi Gouda V. Dandasi Goura

1 in this context.

ii. An earlier case for restoration being Regulation Case

No.144 of 1977 was initiated by the predecessor of the

private Opposite Parties on the self-same facts, same

parties and same land, which was dropped after due

enquiry. Therefore, the subsequent regulation case is

barred by res-judicata/constructive res-judicata. This

aspect was never considered by the A.D.M.

iii. The land was recorded in the name of Nanku Ray as

Rayati tenant by the settlement authorities in 1974

basing on the Yadast Report of 1963 wherein, the

ancestor of the private Opposite Parties, Sridhar Dalai

had endorsed his ‘no objection’. The order passed by

the settlement authorities was never challenged. This

amounts to acquiescence for which the private

Opposite Parties are estopped from challenging the

same at this belated stage.

1

1990 SCC OnLineOri 43

Page 8 of 18

iv. The petitioner and her predecessor-in-interest have

been in continuous and peaceful possession for over

seventy five years. Therefore, as a matter of equity no

adverse orders should be passed against them at the

instance of the private Opposite Parties, who have slept

over the matter for as long as forty-five years.

8. Mr. S.N. Patnaik, learned Additional Government

Advocate would submit that the petitioner never proved

their claim of Nanku Ray having orally purchased the land

from Sridhar Dalai in 1950. The provisions of Odisha

Merged State Laws Act, 1950 and Regulation-II of 1956

shall prevail upon the order passed by the Settlement

Officers if it is found that the transaction was de-hors the

mandatory provisions. Since, there is no proof of any

permission having been obtained by Sridhar Dalai before

transferring the land in favour of Nanku Ray, the same is to

be treated as null and void.

9. Mr. Suraj Mohanty also makes similar arguments as

the State counsel and adds that the petitioner’s claim that

Nanku Ray had purchased the land in January, 1950 was

Page 9 of 18

raised keeping in view the date of coming into force of the

Odisha Merged State Laws Act, 1950 i.e., on 03.03.1950,

the provisions of which also prohibited alienation of land of

a member of the Schedule Tribe to a non-member without

obtaining prior permission. The documents relied upon by

the petitioner such as the Yadast Report, Amin’s Report

and Munsarim’s Mistake List etc. cannot be relied upon as

they have been obtained fraudulently. Mr. Mohanty further

submits that the plea of res-judicata is not tenable as the

earlier proceeding under Regulation-II was in respect of a

different land.

10. From the facts projected by the parties and the

contentions raised by them, this Court finds that the

present case involves determination of the following issues:-

I. Whether Regulation Case No.1 of 1995 was barred by

limitation.

II. Whether the said transaction in question is hit by the

provisions of Odisha Merged State Laws Act, 1950 and

Regulation-II of 1956.

Page 10 of 18

III. Whether the documents relied upon by the petitioner

relating to settlement operations can be accepted as

proof of her claim.

Issue No. I

11. Admittedly, the regulation case was initiated in the

year 1995. Section 7-D was introduced in the year 1975

amending Article 65 of the Limitation Act. In its application

to the Scheduled Areas, the period of twelve years occurring

in Article 65 was substituted by thirty years in relation to

immovable properties belonging to the Schedule Tribes. The

amendment was given retrospective effect from 2

nd October,

1973.

The petitioners claim that the land was purchased

by Nanku Ray in the year 1950. Thus, the Regulation case

was filed after lapse of forty-five years. Be it noted that, the

Odisha Merged State Laws Act, 1950 was repealed by

Regulation-II of 1956, which came to force in the year 1956

but there being similar provision akin to that in the

Regulation of 1956, in the Odisha Merged State Laws Act

also prohibiting alienation of immovable property of a

Page 11 of 18

Schedule Tribe, the period of limitation till coming into

force of the amended Regulation-7-D must be held to be

twelve years and thereafter, thirty years. In the case of

Laxmi Gouda (Supra), a Division Bench of this Court

while examining the amended provisions of Section 7-D

held as follows-

“Where vendor who belonged to Scheduled Tribes

sold his property without taking permission of

authorities as provided under Regn.3, in favour of a

person who was not a member of Scheduled Tribe,

such a sale deed would be void from the very

inception and possession of such alienee would be

deemed to be adverse. Consequently, where

properties were purchased under the sale deed in

the year 1959, the period of 12 years was complete

by 2-10-1973 from which day Regn.7-D as

introduced in 1975 was given retrospective effect

and the period of 30 years for adverse possession

as provided under amended Regn.7-D would not

apply and the alienee would be held to have

acquired valid title by adverse possession. However,

in respect of other properties under sale deed in

year 1961 as the date of sale deed was not

disclosed by the alienee it could not be ascertained

as to whether the period of 12 years was complete

by 2-10-1973 from which day S.7-D was given

retrospective effect, and it was held that the burden

of proving that the alienee has acquired title by

adverse possession being squarely on them, they

were not able to prove that they have completed

their possession for the requisite period by the

aforesaid date and that the alienee did not acquire

title by adverse possession.”

Page 12 of 18

This Court therefore, holds that the regulation case

was not maintainable being barred by limitation.

12. Having held so, it is not necessary to delve into

other issues but considering the fact that the parties have

been litigating in respect of the property at least since

1995, this Court deems it proper to also examine the other

issues, for whatever they are worth.

Issue Nos. II & III

13. To answer the question as to applicability of the

Odisha Merged State Laws Act, 1950 and subsequently,

Regulation-II of 1956, the date of alienation of the land

becomes relevant. In this context, it is claimed by the

petitioner that Nanku Ray orally purchased the land from

Sridhar Dalai in January, 1950. The Merged State Laws Act

came into force on 03.03.1950. It has been vehemently

argued by learned counsel appearing for the private

Opposite Parties that there being no proof of any

transaction having taken place in January, 1950, the

transaction, if at all, must be held to be hit by the

provisions of the Merged State Laws Act as well as

Page 13 of 18

Regulation-II of 1956. As already stated, the petitioner

claims that the transaction was by way of an oral sale for

consideration of Rs.80/- followed by delivery of possession.

Obviously, there would not be a written instrument

signifying the transfer but then, the attending and

surrounding circumstances and subsequent conduct of the

parties can be looked into.

14. In this regard, it is seen that the petitioner relies

upon a certified copy of the Yadast No.106, Amin’s Report

of local enquiry and Munsarim’s Mistake List. Perusal of

the said documents shows that the oral sale was

acknowledged by the settlement authorities. Most

importantly, it is mentioned that the recorded tenant

endorsed his ‘no objection’ to the land being recorded in the

name of Nanku Ray. In the Munsarim ’s Mistake List, it is

significantly mentioned that in the absence of a registered

instrument, the land ought not to be recorded in the name

of the transferee but he being in possession for more than

twelve years, the Assistant Settlement Officer recommended

recording of the land in his favour.

Page 14 of 18

15. It has been argued by the private Opposite Parties

that these are fabricated documents. The State, in its

counter has not said so but has tried to downplay the effect

of these documents by stating that the same are not

binding in the absence of actual sale deed.

16. It is significant to note that the Yadast was

published in 1963, the Amin’s report of local enquiry was

submitted on 19.03.1967 and the Munsarim ’s Mistake List

was submitted on 07.10.1966. What is more important to

note is, the Hal ROR was published in favour of Nanku Ray

in April, 1975. There are several rent receipts showing

payment of rent by Nanku Ray.

17. This Court is unable to accept the contention that

the said documents/records are fabricated. Moreover, a

presumption of correctness is always attached to the

settlement records.

In this context, it would be useful to refer to

Section 13 of the Odisha Survey Settlement Act, which

reads as follows:-

“13. Presumption as to final publication and

correction of record-of-rights-[(1) Any record-of-rights

Page 15 of 18

prepared and finally published under this Chapter

or a certified copy thereof or extract therefrom shall

be conclusive evidence of such publication.

(2) The Government may by notification declare with

regard to land in any local area or village that

record-of-rights has been finally published and such

notification shall be conclusive evidence of such

publication.]

(3) Every entry in a record-of-rights so published

shall be evidence of the matter referred to in such

entry and shall be presumed to be correct until it is

proved by evidence to be incorrect:

Provided that, if any entry in a record-of-rights is

altered in a subsequent record-of-rights, the later

entry shall be presumed to be correct until it is

proved by evidence to be incorrect, but the previous

entry shall be admissible as evidence of the facts

existing at the time such entry was made.”

18. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of

Partap Singh V. Shiv Ram

2 and also by this Court in the

case of Dasarath Singh V. Manvoti Dei

3, unless the

presumption of correctness is dispelled or rebutted by

convincing evidence, the same would not be nullified.

Merely by questioning the authenticity of the settlement

entries and records without adducing any acceptable

evidence to support the same, the settlement records

cannot be ignored.

2

(2020) 11 SCC 242

3

2006 SCC OnLineOri 16

Page 16 of 18

19. Now coming to the moot question as to the date of

sale transaction, admittedly, there is no direct evidence of

the transaction having taken place in January, 1950. The

Odisha Merged State Laws Act, 1950 came into force on

03.03.1950. The Yadast, Amin’s Report and Munsarim ’s

Mistake Report and Hal ROR are documents prepared

much after. It cannot be presumed that the concerned

settlement authorities were ignorant of the provisions of the

Act and the Regulation. On the contrary, having regard to

the statutory presumption of correctness, it must be

presumed that they were fully aware of the provisions and

having found the transaction to be valid in the eye of law,

they took necessary steps to record the land in favour of

the petitioner. Moreover, the subsequent recording of the

land in favour of the petitioner on the strength of the gift

deed dated 21.08.1979 executed by Nanku Ray in 1994

also lends support to the above. Albeit indirectly, this also

lends support to the view that the transaction took place

prior to 03.03.1950 and therefore, the Odisha Merged State

Page 17 of 18

Laws Act, 1950 as well as the Regulation-II of 1956 shall

have no application to the facts of the case.

20. In view of the foregoing narration, this Court is

satisfied that the Regulation case itself was not

maintainable being barred by limitation and even

otherwise, for non-applicability of the provisions of the

Odisha Merged State Laws Act,1950 and Regulation-II of

1956. Even alternatively, the private Opposite Parties not

having set up their claim in respect of the land in question

during the statutory period of thirty years are estopped to

do so and consequently, the petitioners must also be

deemed to have acquired title by way of adverse possession.

21. Reading of the impugned order reveals that the

A.D.M has not considered these vital aspects of the matter

at all and has proceeded on the premise that the provisions

of Act, 1950 and Regulation-II of 1956 are applicable. The

question of limitation was also not considered at all. For all

these reasons, the impugned order is rendered

unsustainable in the eye of law.

Page 18 of 18

22. For the foregoing reasons therefore, the writ

application is allowed. The impugned order is set aside.

……..…………………..

(Sashikanta Mishra),

Judge

High Court of Orissa, Cuttack

The 31

st of March, 2026/Puspanjali Ghadai, Jr. Stenographer