RUPALAXMI SETHI Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Padhy, led by Mr. Rath, learned advocates appear on behalf of petitioner. With leave of his leader Mr. Padhy submits, his client is one of successive subsequent purchasers, from original allottee, in respect of the leasehold interest transferred to him. Lease Revision Case no.9 of 2015 was initiated suo motu by the authority. In said case by impugned order dtd. 8/11/2017 the authority cancelled the lease sanctioned in favour of original allottee, on 25/7/1973.

(2.) Original allottee had transferred his leasehold interest in the meantime. Successive transfers were made and ultimately his client purchased leasehold interest in respect of part of original lease allotment. Other similarly placed purchasers had, by separate respective writ petition assailed impugned order passed in Lease Revision Cases initiated against them. By decision dtd. 11/12/2019 of co-ordinate Bench in Acrux Realcon Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Orissa, reported in 2020 (I) ILR-CUT, 262 orders passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar in Lease Revision Case nos.1 to 13 of 2015, were set aside. Mr. Padhy points out, Lease Revision Case no.9 of 2015, dealt with by the authority, is one of the cases, in which impugned orders herein passed was set aside by the co-ordinate Bench.

(3.) State filed Special Leave Petition, inter alia, against said decision. By order dtd. 27/11/2020 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) no.20294 of 2020 ( The State of Odisha and others vs. M/s. Acrux Realcon Pvt. Ltd.), the Supreme Court was not inclined to interfere with impugned order and accordingly the Special Leave Petition was dismissed.