The petitioners, claiming to be sthitiban tenants of land originally part of the trust estate of Lord Jagannath, challenged an order dated 13.04.2021 passed by the Additional Tahasildar, Puri, which reviewed and set aside an earlier order directing deletion of Shree Jagannath Mahaprabhu's name from the landlord column of the ROR and substitution of 'Odisha Sarkar' in its place. The petitioners argued that their cause of action arose only after the vesting notification attained finality (following dismissal of challenges before the Orissa High Court and the Supreme Court) and after compensation was paid to the ex-intermediary under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951, all of which occurred after final publication of the ROR, thus justifying their application under Rule 34 of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Rules, 1962. The State and the Temple Administration contended that the cause of action predated the settlement operations, that the Tahasildar lacked jurisdiction to entertain the Rule 34 application, and that the review was therefore justified. The High Court examined whether the Additional Tahasildar's review order was legally sustainable, focusing on the narrow question of whether the Tahasildar had jurisdiction to entertain the correction application and whether the review was validly conducted.