NIRMAL KUMAR PATTNAIK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the second round journey of the present petitioner in challenging the order of the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar in Lease Revision Case No.439 of 1998 dated 30.5.2011 (Annexure -8) wherein the Addl. District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar set aside the settlement of the case land in favour of one Bika Naik in W.L.Lease Case No.2055 of 1973.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that one Bika Naik of village Giringaput applied to the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar for settlement of Government Waste Land in respect of Ac.0.500 decimal appertaining to Hal Plot No.266/1044/1130 appertaining to Hal Khata No.239/33 corresponding to Sabik Plot No.1044 under Sabik Khata No.281 in Mouza -Giringaput. Accordingly, the Waste Land Lease Case No.2055 of 1973 was initiated and the aforesaid land was settled and accordingly lease deed was executed in between the said Bika Naik and the State Government in the year 1973. In 1984 i.e. to be specific on 4.4.1984 the original lessee Bika Naik transferred that lease hold land by a registered sale deed in favour of Trilochan Behera. The said Trilochan Behera after obtaining permission from the Revenue Officer, Bhubaneswar sold the land to one Rama Krushna Parida on 18.10.1985. It is alleged that the present petitioner purchased those Ac.0.500 decimals of land from Rama Krushna Parida. Almost after 13 years i.e. on 29.4.1998 the Additional District Magistrate, Khurda, namely, the present Opposite Party No.1 initiated a Sou Motu Revision Case under Section 7 -A(3) of the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 and after examining, the lower court record set aside the settlement of the case land by his order dated 29.4.1998 and directed the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar to cancel the lease granted by the State Government in favour of Bika Naik and to correct the records and take over possession of the land in question. This order of the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar was challenged by the present petitioner before this Court in W.P(C)No.13763 of 2008 and this Court while setting aside the order of settlement of the Revisional Authority directed the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar to dispose of the case afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and also to consider the question of limitation. It is the further case of the petitioner that he appeared before the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar and after hearing the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar passed the impugned order at Annexure -8.

(3.) LEARNED Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State contended that the impugned order at Annexure -8 is a speaking order and when by misrepresentation of facts and playing fraud the land was leased out to Bika Naik on the notion that he belongs to the Scheduled Tribe community, the competent authority on considering such fraud and misrepresentation initiated Sou Motu Revision and in doing that there has been no violation of any statutory provision and limitation of 14 years is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case.