Bhubaneswar, Oct 23 The Odisha Board of Revenue on Friday quashed a 37-year-old order in a high-value land dispute near the world-famous Sun Temple at Konark in Puri district and directed the restoration of 11 acres, valued at Rs 110 crore, to the state government.
The ruling was passed by Board of Revenue member Satyabrata Sahu while hearing two revision petitions filed by the Puri district collector with the state government’s approval.
The disputed land, located near the UNESCO World Heritage Site, will now be restored to government ownership, officials said.
During the hearing, questions were raised over the legal validity of old ‘Hatapatta’ (handwritten land grant) documents and related revenue records.
The board set aside the 37-year-old order of the Commissioner of Land Records and Settlement and directed the local settlement officer to immediately restore the land to the government account.
According to the case records, the disputed land in Konark Mouza of Puri district was originally recorded as Anabadi/Puratana Patita land, or abandoned land.
In 1989, a portion of the land was recorded as Sthitiban, or land held under permanent occupancy rights, in the name of a private individual by an order of the Commissioner of Land Records and Settlement.
The individual had claimed that the land had been granted to him many years earlier through two Hatapatta documents issued by the erstwhile landlord.
The then commissioner heard the case and ordered the land to be recorded in the individual’s name within two months.
However, the Puri collector was not given an adequate opportunity to present the facts, the Board of Revenue noted.
The claimant had submitted evidence of long-term possession, cultivation, payment of land revenue and subsequent revenue entries to support his claim, an official said.
However, legal questions were whether the Hatapatta documents were valid, whether the persons who allegedly granted the land had the legal authority to transfer it, and whether those documents could lawfully establish Sthitiban rights over the property.
Before passing the order, the Board member examined the distinction between possession and legal ownership of land.
“Even if a person has been in possession of a piece of land for a long period, paid land revenue or had their name entered in revenue records, these facts alone do not automatically establish the legal basis of original ownership,” the ruling said.
“The law may protect rights lawfully created before an estate vested in the state; however, a right that was never legally established at the outset cannot be validated merely through subsequent entries in revenue records,” it added.
(PTI News)
