RoR Cannot Be Corrected Behind Backs of Recorded Tenants: Orissa High Court Quashes Additional Tahasildar's Order for Violating Natural Justice

“Any Order Affecting Land Rights Must Follow Audi Alteram Partem”— In a clear reiteration of the constitutional principle of natural justice, the Orissa High Court  quashing an order by the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar, which unilaterally corrected the Record of Rights (RoR) and recalled a previous rent fixation without granting the petitioners a hearing.

Justice A.C. Behera, while allowing the writ petition, held:

"No order for correction of the RoR of any land from the name of the recorded person can be passed without issuing notice or giving an opportunity of being heard to such persons. Such an order violates the principles of natural justice and is unsustainable in law."

The Court declared that the impugned order dated 03.02.2020—which sought to undo a rent fixation order dated 16.07.2019 in favour of the petitioners—stood vitiated for non-compliance with the audi alteram partem rule, a cardinal component of administrative fairness and due process.

“Unilateral Recall of Rent Fixation Order Without Notice Is Arbitrary and Legally Unsound”

The case arose when the petitioners, whose names were lawfully recorded in the RoR pursuant to a rent fixation order by the Tahasildar dated 16.07.2019, discovered that the Additional Tahasildar had suo motu recalled the same order and directed the land to be restored to its previous status—all without any notice or hearing.

The petitioners had been paying rent regularly and held valid rent receipts up to 2019. Yet, the Additional Tahasildar’s impugned action dated 03.02.2020 not only nullified their legal recognition as tenants but also attempted to revert ownership records to a prior state without hearing them.

The High Court categorically rejected this approach, stating:

“It is a settled proposition that any correction of RoR affecting vested rights must be preceded by notice and hearing. The failure to do so renders such order void for non-compliance with natural justice.”

“Hearing Is Not a Mere Formality—It Is an Inalienable Right Under Article 14”

In para 5 of the judgment, the Court emphatically reminded revenue authorities that:

“Persons whose interests are likely to be affected through any order must be given an opportunity of being heard. If an order is passed for correction of RoR without this, it shall be deemed void and in violation of natural justice.”

Justice Behera underscored that even in administrative proceedings, especially those involving land rights, natural justice must be the rule—not the exception. The absence of notice and opportunity of hearing in the present case was fatal to the legality of the Tahasildar’s actions.

“Matter Remanded for Fresh Hearing—Revenue Authorities Must Follow Due Process”

While quashing the impugned order, the Court adopted a restorative approach. It remitted the matter back to the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar with a direction to:

• Re-adjudicate the case (Revenue Misc. Case No.161 of 2016) afresh, and

• Grant the petitioners (and any other affected parties) an opportunity to be heard,

• Complete the proceedings within two months from the parties’ appearance.

The parties have been directed to appear before the Additional Tahasildar on 10.12.2025 with a certified copy of the judgment for further proceedings.

Natural Justice Restored, Arbitrary Revenue Action Curbed

This ruling from the Orissa High Court reaffirms that even revenue authorities cannot override fundamental procedural safeguards enshrined in the Constitution. The attempt by the Additional Tahasildar to alter RoR entries affecting recorded tenants without hearing them was not just procedurally irregular, but constitutionally untenable.

By restoring the petitioners’ right to be heard and remanding the matter for due adjudication, the Court has reinforced the position that land records, being vital legal documents, cannot be tampered with in a clandestine or unilateral manner.

This decision stands as a cautionary reminder to administrative bodies that no authority, however empowered, can dispense with fairness when people’s rights are at stake.

Date of Decision: 25 November 2025