ASHA HANS Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant writ petitions under Article(s) 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 have been filed by the Petitioner assailing the legality and judicial propriety of the impugned order dtd. 9/5/2011 (Annexure-3) passed in Lease Revision Case Nos.538, 553, 554, 563, 564, 565, 566 and 567 of 1998 by the learned Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar (OP No.2), who cancelled the leases granted in favour of the original lessees vis-A-vis the lands subsequently transferred in her favour on the grounds inter alia that it is bad in law and therefore, liable to be set aside.

(2.) Since the parties are same and common question of law is involved, all the writ petitions have been clubbed together for disposal by the following common order.

(3.) In above the cases, the leases were granted under the provisions of the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 (here-in-after referred to as 'the OGLS Act') vide W.L. Case Nos.562, 577, 578, 587, 588, 589, 590 and 591 of 1975. The Petitioner appears to have purchased the leasehold lands either from the lessees or from their vendees and claimed to be in possession of the same ever since the respective purchases made and also mutated her name in the revenue records. In the meantime, suo motu revision proceedings were initiated under Sec. 7-A(3) of the OGLS Act and the leases in question were cancelled by order dtd. 30/6/1998. As revealed from the record, the Petitioner, thereafter, challenged the orders of cancellation by approaching this Court in W.P.(C) Nos.2895, 3291, 3293, 3297, 2893, 3292, 3296 and 3295 of 2003 which were disposed of orders under Annexure-2. In the aforesaid cases, this Court set aside the cancellation of leases and directed OP No.2 to provide hearing to the Petitioner in compliance of 1st proviso to Sec. 7-A(3) of the OGLS Act. Accordingly, the revision proceedings were restored to file and the Petitioner was provided an opportunity by OP No.2. Finally, by a common order under Annexure-3, OP No.2 cancelled the leases granted in favour of the lessees on the ground of fraud and material irregularities in the procedure followed by the concerned authority. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner approached this Court by contending that the leases could not have been cancelled in view of 2nd proviso to Sec. 7-A(3) of the OGLS Act.