JUDGMENT K.R. Mohapatra, J. - The Petitioners in all these writ petitions assail the orders of Settlement Authorities under the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act, 1958'). Although the facts in each of these writ petitions are slightly different from each other, but the question of law involved in all these writ petitions being one and the same, those are taken up together for proper adjudication. 2. W.P.(C) No. 8774 of 2019 has been filed assailing the order dated 23rd March, 2013 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Camp at Rental Colony, Bhubaneswar-Opposite Party No.2 in Objection Case No. 9121/942 of 2012, whereby he rejected the claim of the Petitioner to record Hal Plot No. 648 to an extent of Hc.0.2023 and Plot No. 649 to an extent of Hc.0.3682 under Khata No.894 in mouza Sundarpur and directed to record the same in Government Khata under Abada Jogya Anabadi status. 2.1 The averments made in the said writ petition reveal that one Harekrushna Samantaray made an application for lease of a piece of Government land, which was registered as W.L. Case No. 1356 of 1978. The said W.L. Case was allowed vide order dated 16th April, 1980 and R.O.R. in respect of Plot No. 781/1050 measuring an area of Ac.1.500 decimals under Khata No.176/65 in sthitiban status was issued in favour of said Harekrushna Samantaray. When the lessee was enjoying the leasehold property peacefully, the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar initiated suo motu Revision Case No. 214 of 1987 under Section 7-A (3) of the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 (for short 'the O.G.L.S. Act') and cancelled the lease by order dated 13th August, 1987 and directed the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar-Opposite Party No.3 to record the case land in Government khata. Being aggrieved, the lessee moved this Court in OJC No. 5589 of 1994, which was allowed vide order dated 25th July, 2000/4th September, 2000 directing the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar for fresh adjudication of Revision Case No.214 of 1987. Accordingly, the said revision case was heard afresh and vide order dated 14th February, 2003, the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar dropped the revision case. Pursuant to the order dated 14th February, 2003, the R.O.R. was corrected accordingly in the name of the lessee. Accordingly, the said revision case was heard afresh and vide order dated 14th February, 2003, the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar dropped the revision case. Pursuant to the order dated 14th February, 2003, the R.O.R. was corrected accordingly in the name of the lessee. Due to his legal necessity, the lessee sold the leasehold property to one Sagar Kar through Registered Sale Deed No. 3493 dated 7th July, 2004. Said Sagar Kar in turn sold the said property to the present Petitioner through his Power of Attorney Holder vide Registered Sale Deed No.3700 dated 1st May, 2007 and delivered possession. By the time the Petitioner purchased the land in question, it had lost its character of being used as agricultural land. As the Petitioner purchased the same for his business purpose, he applied for conversion of the case land, which was registered as OLR Case No.5751 of 2009. The Petitioner was directed to pay conversion charges, i.e., premium and arrear rent, to the tune of Rs.15,170/-, which the Petitioner paid immediately on 30th January, 2009. Since the settlement operation was going on in that the area, the Petitioner approached the Assistant Settlement Officer for preparation of R.O.R. in his name and the said application was registered as Objection Case No.9121/942 of 2012. The Settlement Authority, however, did not take any step for disposal of the said objection case for which the Petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.22248 of 2013, which was disposed of on 30th September, 2013 directing the Opposite Party No.2 to dispose of the objection case by the end of December, 2013. Since no notice was issued to the Petitioner to participate in the said objection case till 2016, he again filed Misc. Case No. 18246 of 2016 in the disposed of W.P.(C) No. 22248 of 2013. Accordingly, this Court vide order dated 22nd November, 2016 directed the Assistant Settlement Officer to dispose of the said objection case within a period of two months, if the same is pending. Despite communication of the said order, the Opposite Party No.2 did not make any communication to the Petitioner. The Petitioner therefore filed CONTC No. 1517 of 2017, which was disposed of vide order dated 27th November, 2017 granting further two months' time to dispose of the said objection case. Despite communication of the said order, the Opposite Party No.2 did not make any communication to the Petitioner. The Petitioner therefore filed CONTC No. 1517 of 2017, which was disposed of vide order dated 27th November, 2017 granting further two months' time to dispose of the said objection case. In spite of the same, the Petitioner was kept in dark about the status of the objection case for which he applied for the certified copy of the order sheet of the objection case and on receipt of the same, the Petitioner came to know that the said objection case had already been disposed of since 23rd March, 2013 on the ground that the Petitioner failed to produce the certified copy of the order passed in W.L. Case No.1356 of 1978 and a direction was made for recording of the case land in Government Khata under Abada Jogya Anabadi status. Accordingly, R.O.R. under Section 12-B of the Act, 1958 was prepared in Khata No. 894 in the name of Government under Abada Jogya Anabadi status. 3. W.P.(C) No. 9010 of 2019 has been filed assailing the order dated 24th September, 2013 passed by the Additional Sub-Collector, Bhubaneswar-Opposite Party No. 3 in suo motu appeal, i.e., Suit No. 2408 of 2013, purportedly exercising power under Section 22(2)(a) of the Act, 1958 directing to record the land in question in Anabadi status. 3.1 It reveals from the averments made in the said writ petition that one Kanta Bewa being a Scheduled Caste landless widow applied for settlement of a piece of Government land in mouza Andharua along with other similarly situated applicants. The authorities under the O.G.L.S Act proceeded with all the applications and by a common order dated 29th May, 1974 in Lease Case No. 543 of 1974 directed to record Plot No.2083 to an extent of Ac.1.500 decimals under Khata No.805 in mouza Andharua in favour of said Kanta Bewa. Accordingly, R.O.R. in respect of Khata No. 621/42, Plot No.2083/3152 in mouza Andharua was prepared in the name of said Kanta Bewa under sthitiban status. Said Kanta Bewa for her legal necessity sold the land in question to one Khyamamayee Pradhan vide registered sale deed dated 8th November, 1982 after obtaining permission from the competent authority under Section 22 of the O.L.R. Act, 1960 vide order dated 10th June, 1982 in Revenue Misc. Case No. 314 of 1982. Said Kanta Bewa for her legal necessity sold the land in question to one Khyamamayee Pradhan vide registered sale deed dated 8th November, 1982 after obtaining permission from the competent authority under Section 22 of the O.L.R. Act, 1960 vide order dated 10th June, 1982 in Revenue Misc. Case No. 314 of 1982. When said Khyamamayee Pradhan was in peaceful possession over the land, the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar initiated a suo motu revision case under Section 7-A (3) of the O.G.L.S. Act, in Revision Case No. 174 of 1986, against the lessee, namely, Kanta Bewa. Said Kanta Bewa having alienated the property did not defend the revision case. However, Khyamamayee Pradhan filed an application before the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar for being impleaded as a party to the said revision case. The Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar, however, rejected the said application vide order dated 8th May, 1986 and subsequently cancelled the lease granted in favour of Kanta Bewa vide order dated 4th September, 1987. Said Khyamamayee Pradhan being a bona fide purchaser, finding no other alternative, filed T.S. No. 76 of 1988 before learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar seeking declaration of the order of cancellation by the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar to be void and also to declare the right, title and interest of the land in question in her favour. The suit was decreed on consent vide judgment and decree dated 20th July, 1998 and 1st August, 1998 respectively. The said judgment and decree being not challenged attained its finality. Accordingly, 'K' Form was also issued to maintain the R.O.R. in Khata No.621/42 in the name of Kanta Bewa. Subsequently, pursuant to the judgment and decree passed in T.S. No. 76 of 1988, said Khyamamayee Pradhan sold the land in question to one Dr. Mirza Abid Alli Baig and his wife, Dr. Sabina Abid Alli Baig, vide Registered Sale Deed No. 2368 dated 9th June, 1999 and delivered possession. Thereafter, said Dr. Baig and his wife sold the land in question to the Petitioner in the said writ petition through their registered Power of Attorney Holder, namely, Ashok Kumar Padhi vide RSD No.7807 dated 7th September, 2007 and delivered possession. As the settlement operation was going on in that area and said Khyamamayee Pradhan produced all the relevant records before the settlement authority including the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court. As the settlement operation was going on in that area and said Khyamamayee Pradhan produced all the relevant records before the settlement authority including the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court. Accordingly, Yadast was prepared in the name of the Petitioner under Annexure-8. However, at such a juncture, the Additional Sub-Collector, Bhubaneswar-Opposite Party No. 3 initiated a suo motu appeal under Section 22(2)(a) of the Act, 1958 in Suit No. 2408 of 2013 and vide his order dated 24th September, 2013 directed to maintain the R.O.R. in the name of the Government under Anabadi Khata. It is contended in the writ petition that neither the Petitioner nor his vendors was ever noticed in Suit No. 2408 of 2013, which was initiated on 23rd August, 2013 after lapse of 14 (fourteen) years from the date of the judgment and decree passed in T.S. No. 76 of 1998. 4. W.P.(C) No. 20178 of 2020 has been filed assailing the order dated 22nd December, 2012 (Annexure-1) passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Camp at Rental Colony, Bhubaneswar-Opposite Party No.2 in suo motu Objection Case No. 6560/1006 of 2012, whereby a direction was issued to record the land in question in Government Khata under Anabadi status. 4.1 The averments made in the said writ petition reveal that the father of the Petitioner, namely, Balaram Nayak, was granted permanent lease of a piece of Government land in Sabik Plot No.564/775 under Sabik Khata No.229/18 to an extent of Ac.4.500 decimals in mouza Bhuasuni under Chandaka P.S. pursuant to the order passed in W.L. Case No. 475 of 1967-68. Accordingly, Jamabandi register was prepared in the name of said Balaram Nayak and he enjoyed the suit property on payment of land revenue thereof. After his death, his legal heirs stepped into his shoes and enjoyed the leasehold property. During settlement operation, the settlement authorities prepared draft R.O.R. (Parcha) in the name of the Petitioner, his brothers and mother. Initially khata number in the said draft R.O.R. was mentioned as 254, but subsequently it was corrected as Khata No.298. When the Petitioner along with his co-sharers were waiting to receive final R.O.R., they came to know that the land in question has been directed to be recorded in the name of the Government under Anabadi status vide order dated 22nd December, 2012 in Objection Case No.6560/1006 of 2012 initiated on 15th November, 2012. When the Petitioner along with his co-sharers were waiting to receive final R.O.R., they came to know that the land in question has been directed to be recorded in the name of the Government under Anabadi status vide order dated 22nd December, 2012 in Objection Case No.6560/1006 of 2012 initiated on 15th November, 2012. It is contended in the writ petition that the Petitioner being in possession over the case land was never served with any notice nor he was given any opportunity to put-forth his case before the order dated 22nd December, 2012 was passed. As such, he has filed this writ petition assailing the said order. 5. Mr. Mukherji, learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioners contending that in all these writ petitions, the question of law involved being the same, i.e., non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of law by the settlement authorities, made a prayer for analogous hearing. 6. Mr. Arun Kumar Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State did not object to the same. Accordingly, these matters were heard analogously and disposed of by this common order. 7. It is contended by Mr. Mukherji, learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioners that in all these writ petitions, notices of the proceedings were never served on the respective Petitioners. Copy of the R.O.R. annexed to W.P.(C) No.20178 of 2020, reveals that it was published on 13th November, 2013, but in the list of final publication of the R.O.Rs. of villages attached to the preliminary counter affidavit in W.P.(C) No. 9010 of 2019 for Bhuasuni mouza reveals that the date of publication of the R.O.R. was 21st November, 2012. Rule 29(3) of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Rules, 1962 (for short, 'the Rules, 1962') provides that the Assistant Settlement Officer shall give a certificate under his seal and signature in the finally published R.O.R. as well as map but from the R.O.Rs. annexed to the writ petitions, it appears that one Umakanta Swain, who joined as Settlement Officer on 31st July, 2015 [page-7 & 8 of the rejoinder affidavit filed in W.P.(C) No. 9010 of 2019], had signed the said R.O.Rs. A person who joined in 2015 could not have signed the R.O.Rs. published in 2013. It establishes that final publication of the R.O.R. has not been done in accordance with law. A person who joined in 2015 could not have signed the R.O.Rs. published in 2013. It establishes that final publication of the R.O.R. has not been done in accordance with law. As such, the entire settlement operation beyond the stage of Section 11 of the Act, 1958 in the aforesaid villages, namely, Andharua, Sundarpur and Bhuasuni, is vitiated. Further, the State Government in the preliminary counter affidavits filed in the aforesaid writ petitions have categorically admitted that there is no gazette publication of the notification under Section 13(2) of the Act, 1958, which goes to show that settlement operation has not yet come to an end. As such, the writ petitions are competent and can be adjudicated by this Court without relegating the parties to file revision under Section 15(b) of the Act, 1958. 7.1 He further submitted that the Odisha Special Survey and Settlement Act, 2012 (for short 'the Special Settlement Act, 2012') came into force with effect from 26th September, 2012 on receipt of the assent of the Governor. Thus, in view of Section 4 of the Special Settlement Act, 2012, the settlement operation in the aforesaid villages, which were at the stage of Section 11 of the Act, 1958 ought to have been proceeded under the new Act, namely, Special Settlement Act, 2012 from that stage. Relying upon the decision in the case of Nazir Ahmed -v- Emperor,1936 AIR(PrivyCouncil) 253, Mr. Mukherji, learned Senior Advocate submitted that if the manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under the statute, the Act must be done in that manner or not at all. He further relied upon the order dated 26th April, 2018 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 9675 of 2015, whereby in a similar circumstance, this Court while setting aside the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Camp at Rental Colony, Bhubaneswar, directed the Assistant Settlement Officer, Major Settlement, Jobra, Cuttack to finally record the disputed land in favour of the Petitioners therein. 7.2 Relying upon the affidavit dated 11th January, 2021 filed by the State in W.P.(C) No. 8774 of 2019, Mr. Mukherji, learned Senior Advocate submitted that district Khurda has been notified under Special Settlement Act. Strangely, however, the said notification was not given effect to and the proceedings under the old Act, namely, Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958. 7.2 Relying upon the affidavit dated 11th January, 2021 filed by the State in W.P.(C) No. 8774 of 2019, Mr. Mukherji, learned Senior Advocate submitted that district Khurda has been notified under Special Settlement Act. Strangely, however, the said notification was not given effect to and the proceedings under the old Act, namely, Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958. Had the proceeding under the new Act, i.e., Special Settlement Act, 2012, been undertaken, the land owners would have been benefitted with a larger window to put-forth their objections as provided under Rule 15(2) of the Rules framed thereunder. They would have got an opportunity to put-forth their objections, if any, under Rule 15(3) of the Odisha Special Survey & Settlement Rules, 2012 (for short 'the Rules, 2012') before the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar. By not adhering to the said procedure provided under the new Act and Rules, the land owners including the Petitioners are seriously prejudiced. The principles of harmonious construction and the Latin maxim of leges posteriors priores conterarias abrogant (later laws abrogate earlier contrary laws), as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Essa and Others -v- The State of Maharashtra, through STF, CBI Mumbai and Others,2013 SCCOnlineSC 255, it is held that a later legislation beneficial to the public interest would prevail and in such circumstances, it was incumbent upon the authorities to proceed in accordance with the later legislation, i.e. the Special Settlement Act, 2012 and that having not been done, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and the cases are liable to be remanded to the settlement authorities to proceed from the stage of Section 11 in accordance with the Special Settlement Act and Rules framed thereunder. 8. This Court in course of hearing of the matter on 10th November, 2020 in W.P.(C) No. 20178 of 2020 passed the following order:- "Due to outbreak of COVID-19, this matter is taken up through video conferencing. Heard Mr. Goutam Mukherji, learned Senior Advocate along with Mr. A.C. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Arun Kumar Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-opposite parties. Mr. Arun Kumar Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State submits that in view of the submission made by Mr. Heard Mr. Goutam Mukherji, learned Senior Advocate along with Mr. A.C. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Arun Kumar Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-opposite parties. Mr. Arun Kumar Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State submits that in view of the submission made by Mr. Goutam Mukherji, learned Senior Advocate elaborating the scope of the provision under Sections 12-B and 13 of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 read with Rules 29 and 30 of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Rules, 1962 and Sections 4, 11 and 12 of the Orissa Special Survey and Settlement Act, 2012 read with Rules 15 and 16 of the Orissa Special Survey and Settlement Rules, 2012, a detailed counter affidavit will be necessary. He will also make further submission on the effect of word 'may' used in Rule 29 of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Rules, 1962 for which he prays for some time for the same. Counter affidavit, if any, shall be filed by 24.11.2020 after serving copy thereof on Mr. A.C. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner. Put up this matter on 01.12.2020, as prayed for by Mr. Arun Kumar Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State for further hearing of the case." 8.1. The matter was thereafter adjourned on several occasions and on 12.01.2021, an affidavit dated 11.01.2021 was filed in W.P.(C) No. 8774 of 2019. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Mr. Mishra, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State submitted that the impugned orders are the outcome of non-cooperation of the claimants/petitioners therein. They were either absent at the time the objection cases were taken up for hearing or though present could not produce relevant documents in support of the claim to record the land in their favour. Section 13(3) of the Act, 1958 is clear to the effect that the entries in the R.O.Rs. so published shall be the evidence of the matter referred to in such entry and shall be presumed to be correct until it is proved by evidence to be incorrect. If the Petitioners have sufficient materials in support of their case, they can produce the same before the revisional authority by filing a revision. In the present case, the notification for initiation of settlement operation in the aforesaid villages was made in the year, 1995, which is an admitted fact. If the Petitioners have sufficient materials in support of their case, they can produce the same before the revisional authority by filing a revision. In the present case, the notification for initiation of settlement operation in the aforesaid villages was made in the year, 1995, which is an admitted fact. After conducting survey step by step following due procedure of law as provided under the Act and Rules, final publication has already been made under Section 12-B of the Act, 1958 on different dates as per the list appended to the affidavit dated 11th January, 2021 filed in W.P.(C) No. 8774 of 2019. 15. Rule 29 of the Rules, 1962 provides that a copy of the map and R.O.Rs. finally framed shall be finally published by the Assistant Settlement Officer by placing them for public inspection, free of charge, for a continuous period of seven days at such convenient place as he may determine and the seventh day of such publication shall be deemed to be the date of final publication of the R.O.Rs. and Map. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 29 provides that not less than seven days before the final publication of the R.O.Rs. in accordance with sub-rule (1), the Assistant Settlement Officer shall issue a notice in Form No. 6 to be published in the manner specified in Rule 6. In the affidavit dated 24th November, 2020 filed by the Assistant Settlement Officer in W.P.(C) No. 8774 of 2019, a copy of the public notice in compliance of the Rule 29 of the Rules has been annexed. As such, there is no procedural defect for final publication of the R.O.Rs. in the aforesaid revenue villages. He further submitted that no survey has been conducted as per the Special Settlement Act, 2012 and the Rules framed thereunder, which came into force with effect from 28th September, 2012. Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Special Settlement Act, 2012 makes it clear that a notification should be published in the gazette expressing intention of the Government to conduct the special survey and settlement in any part or the whole part of the State. On the date, i.e., 28.09.2012, when the Special Settlement Act, 2012 came into force, the settlement operation under the Act, 1958 was nearing completion. On the date, i.e., 28.09.2012, when the Special Settlement Act, 2012 came into force, the settlement operation under the Act, 1958 was nearing completion. Thus, the Government thought it proper not to make any notification under Section 3(1) of the Special Settlement Act, 2012, which would have further delayed the process of finalization of settlement operation. The said notification was not issued for the general interest of the public. Mr. Mukherji, learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioners without pointing out the defects, if any, in the final publication of R.O.Rs. under Section 12-B of the Act, 1958 harped upon the applicability of the Special Settlement Act, 2012. By proceeding under the Special Settlement Act, 2012, the land owners would have got few more days to file their objection to the finally framed R.O.Rs. and map, but it would have otherwise delayed the matter. It is not the case of the Petitioners that they did not get ample time to file their objection to the finally framed R.O.Rs. published by the Assistant Settlement Officer under Rule 29 of the Rules, 1962. 16. 17. It is further submitted by Mr. Mishra, learned Addl. Government Advocate that in W.P.(C) No. 8774 of 2019, the Petitioner cannot raise any objection with regard to application of Rule 15 of the Special Settlement Rules, 2012, as, much before the final publication of R.O.Rs. in respect of said mouza (Sundarpur), the Petitioner had filed his objection on 26th December, 2012 before the Settlement Officer as is evident from Annexure-1 annexed to the said writ petition, but for his absence on the date of hearing, though notice was duly served and for non-production of relevant documents, his claim was disallowed. 18. The land in question in W.P.(C) No. 9010 of 2019 was of village/mouza Andharua and final publication has been made on 21st January, 2013. The sabik status of the land was Anabadi, which was subsequently leased out. The Additional Sub-Collector-cum-Settlement Officer, Bhubaneswar initiated a suo motu /appeal under Section 22(2)(a) of the Act, 1958 and the land owners were duly noticed. Had the Petitioners produced the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court, the same could have been considered by the appellate Court while disposing of the matter. The Additional Sub-Collector-cum-Settlement Officer, Bhubaneswar initiated a suo motu /appeal under Section 22(2)(a) of the Act, 1958 and the land owners were duly noticed. Had the Petitioners produced the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court, the same could have been considered by the appellate Court while disposing of the matter. Due to absence of the claimant and non-production of the relevant documents, the Additional Sub-Collector, Bhubaneswar had no other option than to direct for recording of the land in sabik status, i.e., Anabadi. In W.P.(C) No.20178 of 2020, an order passed in suo motu Objection Case has been challenged. Although there is no endorsement of the ASO to the effect that notices on the opposite parties therein have been made sufficient, but, the status of the land in sabik R.O.R. being Anabadi, the same was directed to be recorded as such in absence of any other material to the contrary. The land involved in the said writ petition situates in village/mouza was of Bhuasuni and final publication of the R.O.R. in respect of the land in question was made on 22nd November, 2012. 19. In all these writ petitions, R.O.Rs. in respect of mouzas/villages having been published under Section 12-B of the Act, 1958, the only remedy available to the Petitioners is to file a revision under Section 15(b) of the Act, 1958 for correction of R.O.Rs. in their name. As such, these writ petitions are not maintainable. In that view of the matter, he prayed for dismissal of these writ petitions. 20. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the materials on record placed before this Court. 21. Mr. Mukherji, learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioners categorically submitted that settlement operation went on smoothly till the stage of Section 11 of the Act, 1958, i.e., till preparation of draft R.O.Rs. and hearing of objection. The irregularity and illegality commenced from that stage onwards. Thus, this Court has to examine as to whether there is any infraction of law and procedure committed by the settlement authority beyond the stage of Section 11 of the Act, 1958 up to preparation of final R.O.Rs. under Section 12-B of the Act, 1958. It is further to be examined as to whether the Petitioners in all these writ petitions have an efficacious remedy under Section 15(b) of the Act, 1958 to assail the correctness of the final R.O.Rs. under Section 12-B of the Act, 1958. It is further to be examined as to whether the Petitioners in all these writ petitions have an efficacious remedy under Section 15(b) of the Act, 1958 to assail the correctness of the final R.O.Rs. so published. 22. As submitted by learned counsel for the parties and as appears from the impugned orders in all these writ petitions, it is crystal clear that either the Petitioners herein were absent on the date of hearing of the objection cases/suo motu appeal case or failed to produce relevant documents in support of their case. Thus, a question arises as to whether the authorities under the Act have followed due procedure of law while adjudicating the objection cases/suo motu appeal case, as referred to above. In W.P.(C) No. 8774 of 2019, it is apparent from the impugned order under Annexure-1 that no notice was ever issued to the Petitioner for adjudication of the objection case. There is also no endorsement in the impugned orders to the effect that notices were served on the Petitioners before final adjudication of the said objection case. 23. In W.P.(C) No.9010 of 2019, the order dated 24th September, 2013 passed in suo motu appeal is under challenge. Although an endorsement is made to the effect that notice was duly served on the parties and the Opposite Parties (present Petitioners) were absent on call on the date of hearing, but there is no material on record to come to a conclusion that notices were, in fact, served on the Petitioners therein. The preliminary counter affidavit filed by Opposite Party No.4 does not also reveal that notice of the suo motu appeal i.e. Suit No. 2408 of 2013, was served on the Petitioners. 24. The order sheet of the impugned order as at Annexure-1 in W.P.(C) No. 20178 of 2020 reveals that a suo motu objection case was initiated at the instance of the Assistant Settlement Officer. Although the Petitioner therein was impleaded as Opposite Party and direction was issued vide order dated 7th December, 2012 to issue notice to the Petitioner, who was the Opposite Party therein, but the order sheet does reveal that such notice was ever issued or it was served on the present petitioner. 25. Although the Petitioner therein was impleaded as Opposite Party and direction was issued vide order dated 7th December, 2012 to issue notice to the Petitioner, who was the Opposite Party therein, but the order sheet does reveal that such notice was ever issued or it was served on the present petitioner. 25. Although opportunities in the aforesaid writ petitions were given to the State-Opposite Parties to file a detailed counter affidavit, but, they preferred not to file any detailed counter affidavit in spite of taking several adjournments. 26. In view of the above, it can be safely said that notices in the aforesaid objection cases/appeal were not served on the present Petitioners to put-forth their case by filing relevant documents. The impugned orders in the aforesaid writ petitions can be set aside on the ground of non-compliance of principles of natural justice alone. But, in view of other legal contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties, this Court proceeds to examine the same. 27. It is contended by Mr. Mukherji, learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioners that there are discrepancies in the dates of publication of R.O.Rs., as discussed in the previous paragraphs. He further contended that since there is no notification under Section 13(2) of the Act, 1958 declaring that R.O.Rs. have been finally published, mere publication of R.O.Rs. under Section 12-B of the Act, 1958 will not take away the right of the Petitioners to challenge the order passed by the settlement authority. Mr. Mishra, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State although admitted that there is no notification under Section 13(2) of the Act, 1958, but submitted that the same is not mandatory and will not take away the effect of final publication of R.O.Rs. under Section 12-B of the Act, 1958. He further submitted that Section 15(b) of the Act, 1958 only refers to final publication under Section 12-B of the Act and not to the notification under Section 13(2) of the Act as submitted by Mr. Mukherji, learned Senior Advocate. under Section 12-B of the Act, 1958. He further submitted that Section 15(b) of the Act, 1958 only refers to final publication under Section 12-B of the Act and not to the notification under Section 13(2) of the Act as submitted by Mr. Mukherji, learned Senior Advocate. For ready reference, Section 12-B, Section 13 and Section 15 of the Act, 1958 are reproduced herein below: "12-B. Final publication of record-of-rights - (1) When all such objections and appeals are disposed of, the Assistant Settlement Officer shall finally frame the record-of-rights incorporating all such alterations as may be necessary to give effect to the orders passed on such objections and appeals and shall cause it to be finally published in the prescribed manner and such publication shall be conclusive evidence that the record has been duly made under this Chapter. (2) Separate drafts and final records may be published for different local areas or parts thereof. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 13. Presumption as to final publication and correction of record-of-rights. - (1) Any record-of-rights prepared and finally published under this Chapter or a certified copy thereof or extract therefrom shall be conclusive evidence of such publication. (2) The Government may by notification declare with regard to land in any local area or village that record-of-rights has been finally published and such notification shall be conclusive evidence of such publication. (3) Every entry in a record-of-rights so published shall be evidence of the matter referred to in such entry and shall be presumed to be correct until it is provided by evidence to be incorrect: Provided that, if any entry in a record-of-rights is altered in a subsequent record-of-rights, the later entry shall be presumed to be correct until it is proved by evidence to be correct, but the previous entry shall be admissible as evidence of the facts existing at the time such entry was made. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 15. Revision by Board of Revenue. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 15. Revision by Board of Revenue. - The Board of Revenue may in any case direct- (a) of its own motion the revision of any record-of-rights, or any portion of a record-of-rights, at any time after the date of final publication under Section 12-B but not so to affect any order passed by a Civil Court under Section 42; (b) on application made within one year from the date of final publication under Section 12-B the revision of record-of-rights or any portion thereof whether within the said period of one year or thereafter but not so as to affect any order passed by a Civil Court under Section 42 : Provided that no such direction shall be made until reasonable opportunity has been given to the parties concerned to appear and be heard in the matter." 28. From a conspectus of the aforesaid provisions of the Act, 1958, it can be safely construed that when all objection cases/ appeals are disposed of, the Assistant Settlement Officer shall publish the final R.O.Rs. under Section 12-B of the Act, 1958. Sub-section (1) of Section 13 provides that any R.O.R. prepared and finally published or a certified copy thereof or extract therefrom shall be conclusive evidence of such publication. Sub-section (2), provides that the Government may publish such a notification, which shall be conclusive evidence of such final publication. Mr. Mukherji, learned Senior Advocate submitted that the word 'may' used in the said provision shall be construed to be 'shall' and in support of the same, he relied upon the case law in the case of Shri Rangaswami, Textile Commissioner & Others v- Sugar Textile Mills (P) Ltd. & another, reported in AIR 1977 SC 1516 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraph-2 held as under: "2. As held by this Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jogendra Singh, (1964) 2 SCR 197 at 202 it is well settled that the word "may" is capable of meaning "must" or "shall" in the light of the context and that where a discretion is conferred upon a public authority coupled with an obligation, the word "may" which denotes discretion should be construed to mean a command. Considering the purpose of the relevant empowerment and its impact on those who are likely to be affected by the exercise of the power, we are clear that the power conferred on the Textile Commissioner to issue directions is coupled with the duty to specify the particular period for which the directions shall be operative. Directions of the kind envisaged by clause 20 are influenced and justified by exigencies which render it imperative that the directions be reviewed from time to time. That becomes feasible only if the directions are limited expressly to a determinate period of time at the end of which a fresh review of facts and circum stances becomes obligatory. There is a fear that a direction not limited in point of time may continue to operate even after it has outlived its utility for the reason merely that the need to review it is not clearly perceived. Besides, the manufacturers must know, in order that they may organize their business in their own interest as well as in the interest of the community at large, as to how long any particular embargo is going to be operative." He also relied upon the decision in the case of Union of India & others -v- A.K. Pandey, (2009) 10 SCC 552 , wherein it has been held at paragraph -10 as under:- "10. In his discussion on the subject, "Mandatory and Directory or Permissive Words" Crawford in the afore-noticed treatise says: "Ordinarily the words "shall" and "must" are mandatory, and the work "may" is directory, although they are often used inter-changeably in legislation. This use without regard to their literal meaning generally makes it necessary for the courts to resort to construction in order to discover the real intention of the legislature. Nevertheless, it will always be presumed by the court that the legislature intended to use the words in their usual and natural meaning. If such a meaning, however, leads to absurdity, or great inconvenience, or for some other reason is clearly contrary to the obvious intention of the legislature, then words which ordinarily are mandatory in their nature will be construed as directory, or vice versa. If such a meaning, however, leads to absurdity, or great inconvenience, or for some other reason is clearly contrary to the obvious intention of the legislature, then words which ordinarily are mandatory in their nature will be construed as directory, or vice versa. In other words, if the language of the statute, considered as a whole and with due regard to its nature and object, reveals that the legislature intended the words "shall" and "must" to be directory, they should be given that meaning. Similarly, under the same circumstances, the word "may" should be given a mandatory meaning, and especially where the statute concerns the rights and interests of the public, or where third persons have a claim de jure that a power shall be exercised, or whenever something is directed to be done for the sake of justice or the public good, or is necessary to sustain the statute's constitutionality. Yet the construction of mandatory words as directory and directory words as mandatory should not be lightly adopted. The opposite meaning should be unequivocally evidenced before it is accepted as the true meaning; otherwise, there is considerable danger that the legislative intent will be wholly or partially defeated." 29. On a close reading of the aforesaid provisions in the light of the case laws cited (supra), it can be safely said that in view of the tenor and language employed in Section 12-B and Section 13(1) of the Act, 1958, the notification referred to Section 13(2) of the Act, 1958 is directory and not mandatory. In view of language of Section 13(1) of the Act, 1958, publication of the RORs under Section 12-B of the Act, 1958 do not lose their status of finality. Section 15(a) and (b) of the Act, 1958 refers to publication of the final R.O.R. under Section 12-B of the Act, 1958 and not to a notification under Section 13(2) of the Act, 1958. Thus, non-issuance of the notification under Section 13(2) of the Act, 1958 does not in any way take away the effect of final publication of R.O.R. under Section 12-B of the Act, 1958. As such, there is force in the submission of Mr. Mishra, learned Addl. Government Advocate to the effect that a revision under Section 15(b) of the Act would be maintainable against final publication of the R.O.R. under Section 12-B of the Act, 1958. 30. As such, there is force in the submission of Mr. Mishra, learned Addl. Government Advocate to the effect that a revision under Section 15(b) of the Act would be maintainable against final publication of the R.O.R. under Section 12-B of the Act, 1958. 30. Nevertheless, the writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution can interfere with an order passed by the statutory authority when it acts in a manner not recognized under law. In all these writ petitions, the properties in question were settled under the provisions of the O.G.L.S. Act. The settlement authority also accepted the same and proceeded in the settlement operation up to the stage of Section 11 of the Act, 1958. But, surprisingly the authority under the Act has acted in a different manner and passed the impugned orders without recognizing the settlement of the land under the provisions of the O.G.L.S. Act. Law is well settled that the authorities under the Act cannot sit over the settlement made under the O.G.L.S. Act. There is ample provision under the O.G.L.S. Act to cancel the lease granted in favour of beneficiary and in fact, the said settlements had undergone the test of its validity. It appears from the impugned orders that the Assistant Settlement Officer/Addl. Sub-Collector conveniently avoided the settlement made under the O.G.L.S. Act by ignoring the same, which is not permissible under law. The impugned orders have, in effect, resulted in cancelling the lease granted in favour of beneficiary, which is not within the domain of the settlement authorities. My view gets support from the case of Lily Nanda vs- State of Odisha, (2018) 1 OrissaLR 559. As such, the impugned orders are without jurisdiction and the same are void. The action taken or publication made pursuant to the said void orders are also equally ineffective and no nest in the eyes of law. Thus, final publication of the R.O.Rs. under Section 12-B of the Act, 1958 pursuant to the void orders is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 31. An argument has been advanced by Mr. Mukherji, learned Senior Advocate to the effect that by operation of Section 4 of the Special Settlement Act, 2012, further proceedings of the settlement operation in question ought to have been made under the provisions of the Special Settlement Act, 2012 and not under the provisions of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958. Mukherji, learned Senior Advocate to the effect that by operation of Section 4 of the Special Settlement Act, 2012, further proceedings of the settlement operation in question ought to have been made under the provisions of the Special Settlement Act, 2012 and not under the provisions of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958. Section 3 and 4 of the Odisha Special Survey and Settlement Act, 2012 reads as follows: "3. Intention for survey and settlement (1) The Government may, by notification, express its intention to carry out special survey and settlement in any part or the whole of the State, in accordance with the provisions of this Act not withstanding anything contained in the Odisha Survey and Settlement Act, 1958. (2) Where a notification is published under sub-section(1), the Tahasildar shall publish a proclamation to that effect in the prescribed manner. 4.Reorganizing ongoing survey operations - The Government may, by order, reorganize the ongoing survey operations in the districts concerned or in any area, as the case may be, to bring the same in conformity with the provisions of this Act, so far as it may be deemed necessary, in the prescribed manner and the earlier proceedings shall not be construed to be illegal to any extent on account of the special Survey conducted under this Act." 32. From a close reading of the aforesaid provision, it appears that firstly, the Government may by a notification under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 express its intention to carry out special survey and settlement under the Special Settlement Act, 2012 in a particular area of the State; secondly, the concerned Tahasildar shall publish a proclamation in the prescribed manner to that effect; and thirdly, there has to be an order under Section 4 in order to bring the settlement operation to the fold of the Special Settlement Act, 2012, make an order to that effect. Admittedly, there is no such order passed by the Government to bring in fold the settlement operation initiated under the Act of 1958 to the fold of Special Settlement Act, 2012 except in respect of village Khurda. It is also not clear as to whether any proclamation under Section 4(2) has been made in respect of mouza Khurda or not. The enactment of Special Settlement Act, 2012 does not make the settlement operation initiated under the Act of 1958, redundant or abated. It is also not clear as to whether any proclamation under Section 4(2) has been made in respect of mouza Khurda or not. The enactment of Special Settlement Act, 2012 does not make the settlement operation initiated under the Act of 1958, redundant or abated. Had an order been passed under Section 4 of the Special Settlement Act, 2012, then the settlement operation initiated under the Act of 1958 would have continued under the provisions of the Special Settlement Act, 2012. In view of the clear and unambiguous language of Sections 3 and 4 of the Special Settlement Act, 2012, it can be safely said that the settlement operation initiated under the Act of 1958 does not become illegal on account of enactment of the Special Settlement Act, 2012. No order having been passed by the Government under Section 4 of the Special Settlement Act, 2012, which is discretionary, the argument of Mr. Mukherji, learned Senior Advocate does not hold good. In view of my findings recorded above, rest of the issues raised by learned counsel for the parties need no discussion. It is, however, open to the parties to raise such issues, if so advised before the settlement authorities. 33. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the settlement authorities have acted without jurisdiction in passing the impugned orders and as such, the final publication of the R.O.Rs. under Section 12-B of the Act, 1958 is also not sustainable in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the impugned orders assailed in the respective writ petitions as well as R.O.Rs. published in pursuance thereof are set aside. The matters are remitted back to the authorities for fresh adjudication of the same in accordance with law giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. Since the parties are litigating to assert their right for a considerable time, the settlement authorities are directed to conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of an authenticated copy of this order, which shall be produced by the Petitioners before the settlement authorities within a period of four weeks hence to receive further instruction in the matter. 34. With the aforesaid observation and direction, these writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. 34. With the aforesaid observation and direction, these writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. 34.1 As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a printout of the order available in the High Court's website, at par with certified copy, subject to attestation by the concerned Advocate, in the manner prescribed vide Court's Notice No.4587 dated 25th March, 2020 as modified by Court's Notice No.4798 dated 15th April, 2021.