NIRMAL CHANDRA PANIGRAHI Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, by means of this writ petition, seek to quash the letter dated 02.08.2018 issued by the Assistant Collector, Office of the Sub-Collector, Sadar, Cuttack in Annexure-8, whereby Khasmahal Lease Case No. 1211/2002 has been returned to the Tahasildar, Sadar, Cuttack, and to issue direction to the Collector, Cuttack-opposite party no.2 to grant approval to the recommendation made by the Tahasildar, Sadar, Cuttack-opposite party no.3 in KLC No. 1210/2002, KLC No. 1211/2002 and KLC No. 1212/2002, and further direction to the opposite parties to permanently settle the leasehold lands in favour of the petitioners within a period to be fixed by this Court.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in a nutshell, is that one Late Bira Kishore Kar, son of Late Krushna Chandra Kar was the original lessee of the land appertaining to J. No. 66/1, Khata No. 414, Plot No. 389 (P), Area Ac. 0.172 dec. of Mouza- Ramagarh, Bholamia Bazar, Tahasil- Cuttack Sadar. The said lease was granted in his favour for a period of 30 years w.e.f. 01.04.1973 valid up to 01.04.2003. Late Bira Kishore Kar sold the aforesaid land to the present petitioners vide registered sale deeds executed on 04.11.1985 with due consideration, and since then all the petitioners are residing on the homestead land having constructed residential houses thereon and are in peaceful possession over the same. The petitioners are also paying holding tax as well as rent in respect of the suit land.

(3.) Mr. B. Routray, learned Senior Counsel, along with his associates, was appearing for the petitioners, but unfortunately due to suffering from COVID-19 he could not participate in the proceeding today. Therefore, petitioner no.1-Mr.N.C. Panigrahi, who is none else but a Senior Counsel of this Court and has been duly authorized by petitioners no.2 and 3, argued the matter in person with vehemence contending that the petitioners are in possession of the leasehold land, by constructing their residential houses over the same, for more than five years as on the appointed date and the Tahasildar, Sadar, Cuttack having recommended the case of the petitioners for permanent settlement, in view of position of law that the leasehold estate of the Khasmahal land is heritable and transferable with a right of renewal, the Collector, Cuttack should have approved the leasehold land for permanent settlement in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 3(4)(c) of the OGLS Act, 1962 read with Rule-5-B of the OGSL Rules, 1983 read with Rule 3(a) of the Schedule-V of OGLS Rules, 1983. It is further contended that even though statutory provisions have been complied with, for the reasons best known to the Collector, Cuttack, who is to make approval, is sitting tight over the matter without any rhyme and reason, though the petitioners have moved from pillar to post due to pendency of such approval. More so, the Tahasildar, Sadar, Cuttack is not accepting the rent of the leasehold land of the petitioners from the year 2005, though the petitioners are paying holding tax to the Municipality. It is therefore contended that the direction may be issued to the Collector, Cuttack for approval of the recommendation made by the Tahasildar, Sadar, Cuttack for permanent settlement of the leasehold property within a stipulated time.