PAIR NAYAK @ PANU Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner calls in question the legality & validity of the Order Dated 06.07.1989 of the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar (here -in -after called "the Revisional Authority") passed Under Section 7A(3) of the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 (for short "the OGLS Act") in Revision Case No. 39 of 1989 by which the Revisional Authority set aside the Order Dated 23.06.1975 of Opp. Part No. 2 - Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar, who settled an area of Ac 1.000 of land in Plot No. 743 under Khata No. 745 in Mouza: Chandaka (here -in -after referred to as "the suit land") in W.L. Case No. 909 of 1975 in favour of the Petitioner & further directed to correct the record accordingly & take over possession of the suit land.

(2.) BEREFT of unnecessary details, the facts and circumstances giving rise to the present Writ Petition are that on 05.06.1975 the Petitioner applied to the Tahasildar -Opp. Part No. 1 for grant of lease of the suit land in his favour, which was registered as W.L. Case No. 909 of 1975. The Tahasildar vide his Order Dated 23.06.1975 granted settlement of the suit land in favour of the Petitioner under the provisions of the OGLS Act. According to the Petitioner, he was issued R.O.R. in respect of the aforesaid suit land and he is in continuous possession of the suit land from the date the lease was granted. The Petitioner constructed a residential house on a portion of the suit land and out of its usufructs he maintained his family. The Petitioner also paid rent to the Government which was accepted till the lease was cancelled by the Revisional Authority. In the revision proceeding initiated Under Section 7A(3) of the O.G.L.S. Act, the Petitioner in pursuance of the show cause notice appeared before the Revisional Authority and filed his written statement. The Revisional Authority vide his Order Dated 06.07.1989 cancelled the lease of the suit land on the ground that there were material irregularities as well as legal infirmities in settling the suit land in favour of the Petitioner. Hence, this Writ Petition.

(3.) MR . Ashok Tripathy, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the impugned order under Annexure -2 has been passed by the Revisional Authority arbitrarily without application of judicial mind and contrary to the provisions of Section 7A of the O.G.L.S. Act. After the lease was granted, the Petitioner is in continuous possession over the suit land and has paid rent upto 1989. A suo motu revision was initiated after a lapse of more than 14 years. In view of the specific bar provided Under Section 7A(3) of the O.G.L.S. Act, the Revisional Authority was not empowered to do so &, therefore, the impugned order is without jurisdiction. The Petitioner was also not given sufficient opportunity of hearing before the impugned order was passed. Placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in Chandan Ku. Sethi and. Ors. v. State and Ors.,2010 1 CJD 194 and Madhuchhanda Das v. State of Orissa and Ors., 1998 2 OrissaLR 36, it was argued that Under Section 7A(3) lease cannot be cancelled for non -compliance of non -existent Rules.