GATIKRUSHNA BEHERA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this application under -Art 26 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks to quash the order cancelling lease granted in his favour under the Orissa Minor and Minerals Concession Rules, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules').

(2.) CASE of petitioner is that he applied for lease to remove sand from River Ramial in villages Mahulpal and Rekula. Tahasildar who is the competent authority granted lease of Act. 29 -75 decimals of land in the river in these two villages for removal of sand. Lease is for five years commencing from the date of lease. Against this order opp. party No. 5 preferred an appeal under Rule 29. He applied for interim stay of the order. Sub -Collector who is the appellate authority while granting stay directed that by way of interim measure, the area should be put to annual auction. Petitioner preferred a revision to the Collector under Rule 29(2). Revisional authority granted stay. However, on final hearing, the annual auction amount being much more than the lease amount dismissed the revision.

(3.) MR . Sahoo is not correct that appellate authority has no power to pass interim order for putting the area to annual auction. Every appellate authority has ancillary power to grant stay, unless prohibited by law. This has been clearly laid down by Supreme Court in the decision reported in in AIR 1969 SC 430 (Income Tax Officer, Cannanore v. M. K. Mohammed Khmhi). While passing order of stay appellate authority can pass such order in respect of the property as it would deem just and proper. Accordingly we are not inclined to interfere either with the ancillary order in appeal or with the revisional order.