RAGHUNATH SAHU Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has prayed in this application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the orders (Annexures-6, 7 and 8) arising out of a proceeding under the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.

(2.) In the year 1965, Tahasildar, Balliguda (opp. party No. 5) initiated a proceeding under the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Repealed Act'). In the said proceeding, petitioner claimed that he has purchased land in two instalments from Srimukh Patra and Kunti Patra by two un-registered deeds of sale. When the proceeding was pending, the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972 was enacted repealing the 1954 Act. Under S. 18(2) of the 1972 Act, continuance of the proceedings was protected. In the year 1975. Tahasildar re-numbered the pending proceeding as Encroachment Case No. 3 of 1975. On enquiry, Tahasildar came to the conclusion that possession of vendors and of petitioner being tacked, by the time the proceeding was initiated in the year 1965 petitioner had been in possession for more than 30 years. By the time the order was being made in 1988, S. 8A was inserted to 1972 Act. Accordingly, Tahasildar made a reference to the Sub-divisional Officer, Balliguda under S. 8A(1) of the 1972 Act for settlement of the land with the petitioner. Before the Sub-divisional Officer, three witnesses were examined by the petitioner. In view of the discrepant statements, Sub-divisional Officer came to the conclusion that petitioner is in possession of hardly for four years after his purchase and not 30 years., Accordingly, he directed the Tahasildar to make fresh enquiry. Petitioner not being satisfied with the order of Sub-divisional Officer, preferred an appeal and not being successful, preferred revisions as provided under the 1972 Act. Not being successful to avoid fresh enquiry, petitioner has filed this application for quashing the orders of the Sub-Divisional Officer and other higher forums.

(3.) Mr. B. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under S. 8A(2) of the Act. Sub-divisional Officer is required to give notice to the concerned department of the State Government to show cause why the land should not be settled and, thereafter, he is to make further enquiry as he deems necessary as provided under S. 8A(2) of the Act. No notice having been sent to the concerned department, order of Sub-divisional Officer is vitiated.