NARAN NAYAK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner calls in question the legality and validity of the order dated 17.07.1989 of the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar (here -in -after called "the Revisional Authority") passed under Section 7 -A (3) of the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 (for short "the OGLS Act") in Revision Case No.56 of 1989 by which the Revisional Authority set aside the order dated 23.06.1975 of opposite party No.2 -Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar, who settled an area of Ac.1.000 of land in Plot No.250 under Khata No.745 in Mouza: Chandaka (here -in -after referred to as "the suit land") in W.L. Case No.926 of 1975 in favour of the petitioner and further directed to correct the record accordingly and 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 -opposite party No.1 for grant of lease of the suit land in his favour, which was registered as W.L. Case No.926 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 7 -A (3) of the O.G.L.S. Act, the Revisional Authority called upon the opp.party to show cause as to why the lease granted in his favour should not be cancelled. In response to said notice, the petitioner neither filed his show cause reply nor attended the hearing. The Revisional Authority vide his order dated 17.07.1989 had 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 . J.P. Patnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State, raised preliminary objection that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. No satisfactory explanation has been given by the petitioner explaining the delay in approaching this Court in the year 2010 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the order passed in the year 1989. He further submitted that the petitioner is also otherwise not entitled to get any relief on the grounds taken in the writ petition. Settlement of the Government land in favour of the petitioner have suffered from material irregularities and procedure as well as legal infirmities. The Revisional Authority is fully justified in setting aside the order dated 23.06.1975 passed by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar -opposite party No.2 by which Government land was settled ignoring the statutory provisions. There is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Revisional Authority.