MAMATA BEHERA Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this writ petition assails the order dtd. 21/9/1987 (Annexure-3) passed by the Addl. District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar-Opp. Party No. 3 in R.C. No. 745 of 1987 initiated suo motu under Sec. 7-A(3) of the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 (for short 'the Act').

(2.) Facts in nutshell relevant for proper adjudication of the case as revealed from the writ petition are that one Digambar Bhoi being a landless person applied for grant of lease of a parcel of Government land in his favour. The Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar upon receipt of the application initiated W.L. Case No. 1843 of 1973 on his file and following the formalities and procedure of law settled Plot No. 583 under Khata No. 420 to an extent of Ac.1.000 decimals of land situated in mouza Patharagadia under Chandaka P.S. in the district of Puri (for short 'the case land') in favour of said Digambar Bhoi by way of lease. Accordingly, R.O.R. as per Annexure-1 was prepared in his name. Since then, said Digambar Bhoi and his family members were in possession of the case land. Due to legal necessity, said Digambar Bhoi sold Ac.0.125 decimals of land out of the leasehold property (case land) in favour of the petitioner by virtue of a registered sale deed dtd. 4/7/1984 (Annexure-2) after obtaining due permission from Bhubaneswar Development Authority and delivered possession thereof. Since then, the petitioner is in possession over the case land. When the settlement operation started in the locality, the petitioner approached the settlement authorities to record her name in respect of the land she had purchased vide Annexure-2. But, surprisingly she was intimated that the lease granted in favour of her vendor, namely, Digambar Bhoi, has been cancelled vide order dtd. 21/9/1987 (Annexure-3) passed by the Addl. District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar-opposite party no.3 in R.C. No. 745 of 1987, which was initiated exercising power under Sec. 7-A(3) of the Act. Immediately thereafter the petitioner obtaining the certified copy of the said order and necessary documents in respect of the case land has filed this writ petition for the aforesaid relief.

(3.) It further appears from the averments made in the writ petition that the petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing at the time of adjudication of R.C. No. 745 of 1987 before the Addl. District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar although by the date of initiation of the revision, she had purchased Ac.0.125 decimals of land out of the case land and was in peaceful physical possession over the same. In that view of the matter, a prayer has been made to set aside the order under Annexure-3 and to remit the matter back to the Addl. District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar for fresh adjudication of the revision giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.