Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 : ss. 12, 15(b) – Final publication of record of rights – Revision of record of rights – Respondent claimed to have right over certain land – Record of rights finalised in the year 1962 – Appeal by the respondents before the Settlement Officer in the year 1990 – Though appeal was not maintainable, however, the Settlement officer decided the same and directed the respondent to raise their claim before the General Administrative Department-GAD – Till then, said land already allotted to Reserve Bank of India-RBI by the GAD – Respondents alleged non-consideration of their objections during the course of settlement – After thirteen years, the respondent filed suit claiming ownership on the basis of adverse possession – However, suit dismissed as withdrawn without granting liberty to file fresh suit – Writ petition by the respondents challenging the allotment of land to RBI, claiming allotment of land equivalent to the land given to RBI – Disposal of the writ petition without granting any relief – However, the Division Bench set aside the record of right finalised in 1962 and directed to allot a suitable plot in exchange of stitiban land of the respondent – On appeal held: There was huge delay on the part of the respondents to avail the appropriate remedy – Writ petition, which is the subject matter of dispute, was filed after 46 years of the finalisation of record of rights, which was highly belated – Thus, respondents not entitled to any relief. Writ petition: Maintainability of, when the civil suit filed for same relief was withdrawn without liberty to file fresh one and concealment of material facts from the Court – Held: On the application of principle of constructive res judicata, the writ petition filed by the respondents after withdrawal of the civil suit was not maintainable as no liberty was granted – In case still filing of writ petition was to be justified, at least complete facts need to be disclosed for the purpose, which were missing – In the writ petition there was no mention regarding filing of civil suit earlier for the same relief and withdrawal thereof – A litigant can be non-suited in case he is found guilty of concealing material facts from the court or mis-stating the same – Thus, the respondents not entitled to any relief.
Delay and laches: Final publication of record of rights – Delay in availing the remedies thereagainst – Writ petition to claim relief filed after 46 years of finalisation of record of rights – Entitlement to relief – Held: Not entitled – There was huge delay on the part of the respondents to avail of the appropriate remedy against the final publication of record of rights.
Government orders: Inter-departmental communications – Official notings in the file – Reliance upon – Held: Interdepartmental communications are merely in the process of consideration for an appropriate decision – Reliance cannot be placed upon as a basis to claim any right – Mere notings in the file do not amount to an order unless it is communicated to a party, thus, no right accrues – On facts, no order passed by the Government and conveyed to the party for allotment of any land, thus, no relief admissible to them solely relying on the official notings. Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 There is a huge delay on the part of the respondents to avail of their appropriate remedy against the final publication of record of rights. Hence, the respondents are not entitled to any relief. [Para 54(i)][1082-A]
1.2 On the application of principle of constructive res judicata, the writ petition filed by the respondents after withdrawal of the civil suit was not maintainable as no liberty was granted. In case still filing of writ petition was to be justified, at least complete facts need to be disclosed for the purpose, which were missing. In the writ petition there was no mention regarding filing of civil suit earlier for the same relief and withdrawal thereof. A litigant can be non–suited in case he is found guilty of concealing material facts from the court or mis–stating the same. Hence, the respondents are not entitled to any relief. [Para 54(ii)] [1082-B-C]
1.3 There was no order passed by the Government and conveyed to the respondents for allotment of any land in their favour. Hence, the respondents are not entitled to any relief solely based on the official notings. [Para 54 (iii)][1082-D] Effect of delay and laches in availing the remedies against the final publication of record of rights
2. It is evident that there is huge delay on the part of the respondents to avail of their appropriate remedy. Record of rights was finalised in the year 1962. As admitted in the writ petition, objections were filed by the respondents or their predecessors– in–interest before that. Remedy, after publication of final record of rights, was revision under Section 15(b) of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 to be filed within one year. No remedy was availed of. Nearly three decades after finalisation of record of rights, application was filed before the Settlement Officer, which was not maintainable after final record of rights is published. When no relief was granted by the Settlement Officer, the respondents kept quite for 13 years before filing a civil suit in the year 2003. It was dismissed as withdrawn in the year 2007. The writ petition was filed in the year 2008, which is subject matter of dispute in the instant appeal. The said facts show that the writ petition to claim relief was filed after 46 years of finalisation of record of rights, which was highly belated. Hence, the respondents were not entitled to any relief. [Para 34][1070-C-E] Maintainability of writ petition when the civil suit filed for same relief was withdrawn without liberty to file fresh one and on the concealment of material facts from the Court
3.1 Having regard to the principles laid down in M.J. Exporters Private Limited’s case, applying the principles of constructive res judicata, the instant writ petition filed by the respondents af ter withdrawal of the civil suit, was not maintainable, in the sense that it ought not to have been entertained. In case the respondents still wanted to justify filing of the writ petition, they should have at least disclosed complete facts and then justify filing of the writ petition. [Para 38][1072-A-B]
3.2 The writ petition also ought to be dismissed on the ground of concealment of material facts regarding filing and withdrawal of the civil suit claiming the same relief. Neither in the writ petition nor in the appeal against the order passed in the writ petition, the respondents disclosed the filing of civil suit and withdrawal thereof. It only transpired only that at the time of the hearing of the appeal. [Para 39][1072-C]
3.3 As to how a litigant who conceals material facts from the Court has to be dealt with, has been gone into by this Court, time and again and the consistent opinion is that, he is not entitled even to be heard on merits. [Para 40][1072-D]
3.4 If the case of the respondents is considered on factual material, it is evident that the respondents waived off their right to challenge the record of rights which stood finalised way back in the year 1962 and till date there has been no challenge made to the same. Indirectly relief was sought by filing appeal before the Settlement Officer, which was not maintainable; civil suit which was ultimately withdrawn and then filed the writ petition and thereafter writ appeal which is the subject–matter of the present proceedings. [Para 50][1077-G-H]
Whether a party can rely on notings in the Government file without having communication of any order on the basis thereof
4. In inter-departmental communications are merely in the process of consideration for an appropriate decision. These cannot be relied upon as a basis to claim any right. Mere notings in the file do not amount to an order unless an order is communicated to a party, thus, no right accrues.On facts,there is no order passed by the Government and conveyed to the respondents for allotment of any land, hence, no relief was admissible to them only relying on the official notings. [Paras 51 and 53][1078-B-C; 1081-G]
5. The order passed by the High Court is set aside, consequently the writ petition filed by the respondents is dismissed. [Para 55][1082-F]
M.J. Exporters Private Limited v. Union of India and others (2021) 13 SCC 543; Mahadeo and others v. Sovan Devi and others (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1118 – relied on.
Abdulla Kabir v. Md. Nasiruddin (1989) 2 SCC 361 : [1989] 1 SCR 396; P. S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu (1975) 1 SCC 152 : [1975] 2 SCR 356; New Delhi Municipal Council v. Pan Singh and others (2007)
9 SCC 278 : [2007] 3 SCR 711; State of Uttaranchal and another v. Sri Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari and others (2013) 12 SCC 179 : [2013] 9 SCR 609;
Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and others v. T. T. Murali Babu (2014) 4 SCC
108 : [2014] 1 SCR 987; State of Jammu & Kashmir vs. R. K. Zalpuri and others (2015) 15 SCC 602 : [2015]
12 SCR 285; Union of India and others v. Chaman Rana (2018) 5 SCC 798 : [2018] 3 SCR 640; Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd. and others v. Shree Lal Meena (2019) 4 SCC
479 : [2019] 5 SCR 391; Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and others v. Shyam Kishore Singh (2020) 3 SCC 411 : [2020] 2 SCR 597; Union of India and others vs. N. Murugesan and others (2022) 2 SCC 25; Abhyudya Sanstha Vs. Union of India and others (2011) 6 SCC
145 : [2011] 7 SCR 611; Hari Narain v. Badri Das AIR 1963 SC 1558 : [1964] SCR 203; G.
Narayanaswamy Reddy (Dead) by Lrs. and another v. Govt. of Karnataka and another (1991) 3 SCC 261 : [1991] 2 SCR 563; Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2010) 2 SCC 114 : [2009] 16 SCR 111; Moti Lal Songara Vs. Prem Prakash @ Pappu and another (2013) 9 SCC 199 : [2013] 6 SCR 496; ABCD Vs. Union of India and others (2020) 2 SCC 52 : [2019]
15 SCR 1; Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma (1995)
1 SCC 421 : [1994] 5 Suppl. SCR 465; K.D. Sharma Vs. Steel Authority of India Limited and others (2008)
12 SCC 481 : [2008] 10 SCR 454; Dhananjay Sharma vs. State of Haryana and others (1995) 3 SCC 757 : [1995] 3 SCR 964; Municipal Committee, Barwala, District Hisar, Haryana through its Secretary/President v. Jai Narayan and Company and another 2022 SCC OnLine SC 376 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.