RAWEL BARLA Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the writ petitions have been filed by the Petitioner assailing the legality and judicial propriety of the impugned order dtd. 26/8/2011 (Annexure-1) passed in O.E.A. R.C. Suo Motu Case No.101 of 2008 under Sec. 38-B of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'OEA Act ') by the Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack (O.P.No.2) on the grounds inter alia that the decision is erroneous, arbitrary and beyond jurisdiction and therefore, liable to be interfered with and set aside.

(2.) The Petitioner contends that O.P.No.2 did not have any jurisdiction in interfering with an order recognizing a tenant 's right in possession of a land on the date of vesting by the OEA authority which is by virtue of an administrative enquiry. It is further contended that the Hukumnama(Annexure-2 series), after due enquiry, having been found to be genuine by the authority under the provisions of the OEA Act, O.P. No.2 acted in excess of jurisdiction in rejecting it without any material to the contrary. As per the Petitioner, the impugned order under Annexure-1 is wholly misconceived in law, inasmuch as, the provisions of Orissa Communal Forest and Private Lands (Prohibition of Alienation) Act, 1948 (shortly referred to as 'Act 1 of 1948 ') are totally inapplicable to the private estates. It is the further contention of the Petitioner that Sec. 5(i) of the OEA Act is not applicable since the possession on the strength of Hukumnama (Annexure-2 series) is neither a settlement nor a lease or a transfer. It is, thus, contended that O.P.No.2 could not have unsettled the tenancy right vis-a-vis the schedule land which was ensured in accordance with Sec. 8(1) of the OEA Act. On the above grounds, the impugned order under Annexure-1 is challenged by the Petitioner as bad in law.

(3.) Heard Mr. G. Misra, learned Senior Advocate and Mr. S.N. Das, learned ASC appearing for the State.