SUBASINI ROUT Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present writ application invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article(s) 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India,1950 is at the behest of the Petitioners assailing the impugned order dtd. 5/2/2010 (Annexure-11) passed in Misc.(Lease) Case No.01 of 2009 by the Collector, Khurda (OP No.3) as void and inoperative and order dtd. 2/8/2006 (Annexure-7) passed in Lease Revision Case No.01 of 2004 by the learned ADM, Bhubaneswar (OP No.4) to be non-existent in the eye of law on the grounds inter alia that the lease granted under the Lease Principles, 1961 could not have been revoked under the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the OGLS Act') and OP No.4 in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Sec. 7-A(3) of the OGLS Act ought not to have recalled it under Annexure-7 and hence, liable to be interfered with.

(2.) As pleaded, the predecessor-in-interest of the Petitioner was in possession of schedule land measuring an area of Ac.0.85 decimals appertaining to Plot No.44, Khata No.493 of Mouza- Patia, Bhubaneswar since 1950 after leased out in his favour. It is claimed that the original Petitioner had filed an application on 18/8/1980 for settlement of the case land which was registered as W.L. Lease Case No.1409 of 1980, where after, proclamation dtd. 30/9/1980 was issued inviting objections but since no objection was received, considering the report of the R.I., Kalarahang, land of Ac.0.50 decimals was leased out in his favour in view of its long possession and thereafter, correction of record of rights was directed by order dtd. 16/1/1981 (Annexure-4). It is further pleaded that application under Sec. 7-A(3) of the OGLS Act was submitted before OP No.4 against the Petitioners to cancel the lease granted in Lease Revision Case No.01 of 2004, wherein, it was held that there was no fraud or mistake of fact or material irregularity being committed in sanctioning the lease and consequently, the proceeding was dropped as time barred by order under Annexure-7 later to which W.P.(C) No.1714 of 2008 was filed which was disposed of with a direction to the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (OP No.5) to pass appropriate order in respect of the demised land. As pleaded further, a PIL was filed in W.P.(C) No.275 of 2009 again by raising a dispute to cancel the lease granted in favour of the original Petitioner on false and frivolous grounds, wherein, he was arrayed as OP No.7 but it was disposed of by order dtd. 11/2/2009 at the admission stage itself directing the Petitioners therein to make a representation before OP No.3, who shall dispose of the same within a period of three months after hearing all the parties, later to which, OP No.3 passed the impugned order under Annexure-11 which is alleged to be without jurisdiction leading to the cancellation of lease long after 23 years.

(3.) Heard Mr. A.K. Patra, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. S.N. Das, learned ASC appearing for the State.