STATE OF ORISSA & ANR. versus LAXMI NARAYAN DAS (DEAD) THR. LRS & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 10 S.C.R. 1049 · Decided: 12-07-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY S. OKA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 16 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1049
STATE OF ORISSA & ANR.
v.
LAXMI NARAYAN DAS (DEAD) THR. LRS & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 8072 of 2010)
JULY 12, 2023
[ABHAY S. OKA AND RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.]
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dismissed as withdrawn without granting liberty to file fresh suit –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same relief was withdrawn without liberty to file fresh one and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
[2023] 10 S.C.R. 1049 : 2023 INSC 619
1049
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1050
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 10 S.C.R.
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: Inter-
departmental 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]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1051
1.3 There was no order

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.