KUMUDINI PATTNAIK Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Samantaray, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, impugned are orders dtd. 11/7/2013 and subsequent undated order, both passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer (ASO), purporting to cancel the lease, firstly suo motu and thereupon reiteration of the same, when his client had moved the authority in revision. He submits, leases come within domain of Orissa Government Land Settlement Act, 1962. The ASO acted wholly without jurisdiction. He relies on judgment dtd. 2/1/2023 of the first Division Bench in this Court made in, inter alia, WP(C) no.1608 of 2014 (Narottam Rath v. State of Odisha and another). He relies on paragraphs 16 and 17. The paragraphs are reproduced below.

(2.) Mr. Sharma, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of State and submits, this Bench does not have assignment. Impugned orders have been passed by the ASO under Odisha Survey and Settlement Act, 1958. Without prejudice he submits, impugned order dtd. 11/7/2013 was made by the ASO under sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 21 in Odisha Survey and Settlement Act, 1958. It was duly made. There should not be interference. He submits, Narottam Rath (supra) is not applicable to petitioner's case. In Narottam Rath (supra), the leases were confirmed by orders passed by the Additional District Magistrates (ADM). In this case petitioner had managed to get recorded her name claiming settlement by lease. Hence, this case is distinguishable on facts. Furthermore, it is valuable Government land and there be direction for filing of counter. He submits further, the writ petition suffers from inordinate delay disentitling petitioner to get any relief.

(3.) Mr. Samantray submits, there is explanation in paragraph 7. We reproduce below a passage from said paragraph.