Supreme Court Settles Land Rights Dispute: State of Orissa vs. Laxmi Narayan Das (2023)

Date of the Judgment: 12 July 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 619

Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Rajesh Bindal, J.

Can a decades-old land record be challenged in court, especially after a previous attempt was withdrawn? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving the State of Orissa and the heirs of Laxmi Narayan Das. The core issue revolved around whether a writ petition was maintainable after a civil suit for the same relief had been withdrawn without the court’s permission to file a fresh suit, and the impact of significant delays in challenging land records. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, with Justice Rajesh Bindal authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The dispute originated from a writ petition filed by Laxmi Narayan Das (now deceased, represented by his legal heirs) on June 27, 2008. This petition challenged an order from March 1, 1990, by the Settlement Officer. The crux of the matter was that the petitioners’ objections during the land settlement process were allegedly not considered, and the land was recorded in the name of the General Administration Department (GAD). The petitioners claimed the land was their ‘stitiban’ property, which refers to the homestead of an agriculturist. They were initially granted the liberty to file a representation to the GAD, but they claimed no action was taken on it.

The State argued that the final record of rights was published in 1962, and the petitioners should have filed a revision application under Section 15(b) of the Orissa Survey & Settlement Act, 1958. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, but a Division Bench of the High Court reversed this decision, ordering the State to consider the petitioners’ representation and allot them an alternative plot in exchange for their land. This order of the Division Bench was challenged by the State.

Timeline

Arguments

State of Orissa’s Arguments:

• The State argued that the record of rights was finalized in 1962, and the land was not occupied at that time. No objections were raised by the landowners, and the appeal filed in 1990 was disposed of with an observation that the claim could be raised with the GAD.
• The State contended that after the 1990 order, the respondents remained silent until filing a civil suit in 2003, which was later withdrawn. The respondents then filed a writ petition in 2008, seeking the same reliefs.
• The State asserted that the Division Bench of the High Court had erred in directing the allotment of an alternative plot when the respondents’ rights were not yet established and the record of rights was not challenged.
• The State highlighted that the respondents were aware of the developments since the record of rights was prepared, including the allotment of a portion of the land to the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). They argued that the respondents were forum hunting and had not availed the appropriate remedies against the finalization of the record of rights.
• The State also pointed out that the respondents did not disclose the civil suit and its withdrawal in their appeal against the Single Judge’s order.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The respondents argued that the 1990 appeal raised the issue of wrongful preparation of the record of rights. They contended that after the 1990 order, they made representations to the GAD, but when nothing came of it, they filed a civil suit.
• The respondents explained that the civil suit sought a declaration of ownership by adverse possession, and an injunction. They withdrew the suit because the government was actively considering their representations for an alternative land allotment.
• The respondents claimed that official notings indicated that they were entitled to an alternative land allotment. They argued that the Single Judge had failed to consider their genuine claim, while the High Court had rightly granted relief.
• The respondents admitted that the land in dispute was the same, despite changes in identification numbers in revenue records.

Submissions of Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Effect of delay and laches in availing the remedies against the final publication of record of rights.
2. Maintainability of writ petition when the civil suit filed for the same relief was withdrawn without liberty to file fresh one and on the concealment of material facts from the Court.
3. Whether a party can rely on notings in the Government files without having communication of any order on the basis thereof?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon by the Court:

• P. S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1975) 1 SCC 152 – Established that a person aggrieved by an order should approach the court expeditiously.
• New Delhi Municipal Council v. Pan Singh and others, (2007) 9 SCC 278 – Opined that a writ petition should be filed within a reasonable time.
• State of Uttaranchal and another v. Sri Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari and others, (2013) 12 SCC 179 – Stated that relief can be refused to a person who puts forward a stale claim.
• Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and others v. T. T. Murali Babu, (2014) 4 SCC 108 – Discussed the doctrine of delay and laches, emphasizing that a writ court must weigh the explanation for delay.
• State of Jammu & Kashmir vs. R. K. Zalpuri and others, (2015) 15 SCC 602 – Held that issues should not be addressed on merits if there is delay and laches.
• Union of India and others v. Chaman Rana, (2018) 5 SCC 798 – Followed the view on delay and laches.
• Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd. and others v. Shree Lal Meena, (2019) 4 SCC 479 – Stated that stale claims should not be raised on the basis of subsequent judgments.
• Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and others v. Shyam Kishore Singh, (2020) 3 SCC 411 – Dismissed a petition filed belatedly seeking a change in the date of birth in the service record.
• Union of India and others vs. N. Murugesan and others, (2022) 2 SCC 25 – Observed that neglect on the part of a party to do an act required by law must stand in the way of getting relief and that delay in availing the remedy would amount to a waiver of such right.
• M.J. Exporters Private Limited v. Union of India and others (2021) 13 SCC 543 – Applied the principle of constructive res judicata, stating that principles of Order 23, Rule 1 CPC are applicable in writ proceedings.
• Abhyudya Sanstha Vs. Union of India and others, (2011) 6 SCC 145 – Declined relief to petitioners who did not approach the court with clean hands.
• Hari Narain v. Badri Das AIR 1963 SC 1558 – Denied relief to the petitioner/appellant on the ground that he had not approached the Court with clean hands.
• G. Narayanaswamy Reddy (Dead) by Lrs. and another v. Govt. of Karnataka and another (1991) 3 SCC 261 – Denied relief to the petitioner/appellant on the ground that he had not approached the Court with clean hands.
• Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2010) 2 SCC 114 – Noticed the progressive decline in the values of life and emphasized that a litigant who attempts to pollute the stream of justice is not entitled to any relief.
• Moti Lal Songara Vs. Prem Prakash @ Pappu and another (2013) 9 SCC 199 – Considered the issue regarding concealment of facts before the Court.
• ABCD Vs. Union of India and others (2020) 2 SCC 52 – Observed that making a false statement on oath is an offense.
• Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma (1995) 1 SCC 421 – Held that a person who makes an attempt to deceive the court interferes with the administration of justice.
• K.D. Sharma Vs. Steel Authority of India Limited and others (2008) 12 SCC 481 – Observed that an applicant who does not come with candid facts cannot hold a writ of the court with “soiled hands”.
• Dhananjay Sharma vs. State of Haryana and others (1995) 3 SCC 757 – The filing of a false affidavit was the basis for initiation of action in contempt jurisdiction.
• Mahadeo and others v. Sovan Devi and others, (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1118 – Stated that inter-departmental communications are merely in the process of consideration and cannot be relied upon as a basis to claim any right.
• Omkar Sinha v. Sahadat Khan, (2022) 12 SCC 228 – Held that merely writing something on the file does not amount to an order.
• Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 395 – Held that an order has to be expressed in the name of the Governor and then it has to be communicated.
• K.S.B. Ali v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2018) 11 SCC 277 – Followed Bachhittar Singh’s ruling.
• Dyna Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Crompton Greaves Limited, (2019) 20 SCC 1 – Followed Bachhittar Singh’s ruling.
• Municipal Committee v. Jai Narayan & Co., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 376 – Held that a noting recorded in the file is merely a noting simpliciter and nothing more.
• State of Uttaranchal v. Sunil Kumar Vaish, (2011) 8 SCC 670 – Held that a noting recorded in the file is merely a noting simpliciter and nothing more.
• State of Punjab v. Sodhi Sukhdev Singh, AIR 1961 SC 493 – Held that a noting or even a decision recorded in the file can always be reviewed/reversed/overruled or overturned.
• State of Bihar v. Kripalu Shankar, (1987) 3 SCC 34 – Held that a noting or even a decision recorded in the file can always be reviewed/reversed/overruled or overturned.
• Rajasthan Housing Board v. Shri Kishan, (1993) 2 SCC 84 – Held that a noting or even a decision recorded in the file can always be reviewed/reversed/overruled or overturned.
• Sethi Auto Service Station v. DDA, (2009) 1 SCC 180 – Held that a noting or even a decision recorded in the file can always be reviewed/reversed/overruled or overturned.
• Shanti Sports Club v. Union of India (2009) 15 SCC 705 – Held that a noting or even a decision recorded in the file can always be reviewed/reversed/overruled or overturned.

Legal Provisions Considered by the Court:

• Section 12 of the Orissa Survey & Settlement Act, 1958 – Pertains to the process of finalizing the record of rights.
• Section 12-A of the Orissa Survey & Settlement Act, 1958 – Provides for an appeal against the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer.
• Section 12-B of the Orissa Survey & Settlement Act, 1958 – Pertains to the publication of the final record of rights.
• Section 15(b) of the Orissa Survey & Settlement Act, 1958 – Provides for an application to the Board of Revenue against an appellate order passed under Section 12-A.
• Article 166(1) of the Constitution of India – Requires that all executive action of the Government of a State shall be expressed in the name of the Governor.
• Article 166(2) of the Constitution of India – Provides for the authentication of orders and other instruments made and executed in the name of the Governor.
• Order 23, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Deals with the withdrawal of suits.

Judgment

What weighed in the mind ofthe Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Delay and Laches: The significant delay on the part of the respondents in challenging the record of rights finalized in 1962 was a major factor. The court emphasized that remedies must be availed within a reasonable time, and stale claims cannot be entertained.
• Constructive Res Judicata: The withdrawal of the civil suit without permission to file a fresh suit barred the respondents from raising the same issues again in a writ petition. The court applied the principle of constructive res judicata, which prevents parties from re-litigating issues that could have been raised in a previous suit.
• Concealment of Material Facts: The respondents’ failure to disclose the withdrawal of the civil suit in their writ petition was considered a serious lapse. The court held that litigants must approach the court with clean hands and disclose all relevant facts.
• Lack of Communicated Order: The court held that notings in government files, without a communicated order, do not create any rights or entitlements. The respondents’ reliance on internal notings was deemed insufficient to establish their claim.
• Importance of Finality of Land Records: The court underscored the importance of the finality of land records. Allowing challenges to decades-old records would create uncertainty and instability in land ownership.

Final Order

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the State of Orissa. The order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court was set aside, and the order of the Single Judge was restored. The writ petition filed by the respondents was dismissed.

Flowchart of the Legal Process

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Orissa vs. Laxmi Narayan Das reinforces several key principles of law. It highlights the importance of timely action in legal matters, the finality of land records, and the need for litigants to approach the court with clean hands. The judgment also clarifies that notings in government files, without a communicated order, cannot be the basis for asserting a legal right. This case serves as a reminder that legal remedies must be pursued diligently and within the prescribed time limits, and that courts will not entertain stale claims or those made in bad faith. The ruling has significant implications for land rights disputes across the country, emphasizing the need for transparency and adherence to legal procedures.