BIBEKANANDA SATPATHY Vs. MUKUNDA SAHOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Short background involved herein is that petitioner bringing an application under the provision of Sec. 15 (b) and (d) of the O.L.R. Act (wrongly indicated as Sec. 18 (b) and (d)) also in the involvement of the private opposite party herein was registered as O.L.R. Case No.140 of 1980. This proceeding appears to have been allowed declaring the petitioner as a tenant by order dtd. 3/8/1981 vide Annexure-1. This order is never challenged. While the matter stood thus, a fresh proceeding was brought by the private opposite party herein under the provision of Sec. 15(2) and 16 of the O.L.R. Act and the proceeding was registered as O.L.R. Case No.77 of 1998. This proceeding came to be disposed of by the Tahasildar, as the competent authority vides its order dtd. 26/2/2005 vide Annexure-2.

(2.) Assailing the order, Mr.Acharya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that there may not be any difficult in exercise of power under Sec. 15(2) and 16 of the O.L.R. Act but the Tahasildar in exercise of such power is not empowered to take out the earlier order of the Tahasildar passed under the provision of Sec. 15(1) (b) and (d) of the O.L.R. Act. Taking this Court to the observation part vide Annexure-2, Mr.Acharya, learned counsel contended that there is illegal exercise of power.

(3.) Mr.Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the private opposite party though did not dispute that the illegal discharge of power by the Tahasildar in taking out the order dtd. 3/8/1981 by the subsequent Tahasildar, however, submits for the provision under Sec. 15(2) and 16 of the O.L.R. Act, the Tahasildar still has power to determine the issue without being disturbed by the order at Annexure-1. Learned State Counsel supports the stand of Mr.Mohanty.