RAJKISHORE DAS Vs. STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, an ex -army personnel, has challenged the order of the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar cancelling a lease granted in his favour in purported exercise of jurisdiction under Section s 7 -A(3) of the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 (Act 33 of' 1962),

(2.) THE petitioner, who was admittedly in Military service applied for lease of a piece of land being a landless person and having no source of income after being discharged from service. His application was registered as W.L. Case No. 864 of 1S77 and was considered in accordance with the decision of the Government for settlement of land in favour of the Jawans, The Home Department of the State Government declared the petitioner to be eligible for grant of land as per the Department's resolution Mo. 20827/POll dated 7 -7 -1969 subject to the condition that the petitioner and all his -family members taken together hove got less than 5 acres of land in the Stats and that he is a permanent resident of the State of Orissa in terms of resolution No. 4741/POll dated 8 -2 -1970. The petitioner had submitted a declaration to the above effect that he satisfies the aforesaid criteria and that ho is entitled to lease of land as per the resolution of the Government. The petitioner's application was duly considered by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar for lease of 5 acres of land appertaining to Plot No 2031 in Khata No, 645 in village Andharua. Alter issuing proclamation inviting public objection and after due enquiry by the Revenue Inspector, whose report was placed before the Tahasildar, the aforesaid Sand was granted to the petitioner free of salami as he was a Jawan. The land was so settled by order of the Tahasildar on 30 -3 -1973.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner mainly urged three points challenging the legality of the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate in Annexure -5, which are as follows : (i) The lease in favour of the petitioner was not granted under the Act and, therefore, the proceeding under Section 7 -A(3) of the said Act was incompetent and no jurisdiction was available to the Tahasildar to suo motu initiate a proceeding and cancel the lease, (ii) That the Tahasildar was not competent to settle five acres of land under the Act which renders the settlement illegal is not correct in law and the petitioner was never called upon to meet such a point by the revisional Court. It was also urged that opp. party No. 2 exceeded in his authority to decide the aforesaid question which was beyond the point formulated by this Court while remitting the matter by order dated 9 -3 -1990 in OJC No. 4007 of 1989. (in) The finding that no proclamation - was made by beat of drums is unsupportable on the face of materials available on record.