ASHOK KUMAR MISHRA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition the petitioners have challenged the grant of lease of Ac.0.12 decimals of land in favour of opp. party No. 5 by the Collector, Sambalpur and the proceeding initiated against them by the Revenue authorities for eviction from the said land.

(2.) An area of Ac.0.23 decimals including the disputed land measuring Ac.0.12 decimals in plot No. 858 under Khata No. 1180 of Sambalpur Town was transferred by the Revenue Department to Sambalpur Municipality on the 31st of January, 1971, Vide Govt. Order No. 16233 for public road and other ancillary purposes. After utilizing a part of that land for road, the Sambalpur Municipality issue licence to the petitioners and others to put their respective cabins over the rest part of that land on payment of licence fee to the Municipality. On 18.4.1981 opp. party No. 5 applied for lease of some suitable land for establishment of his press for publication of news paper "AGNISIKHA" and the application was registered as Lease Case No. 2 of 1981 by the Tahasildar, Sadar, Sambalpur. In that case, proclamation was issued, report of the Nazul Surveyor was called for and after expiry to the statutory period, the Tahasildar, Sadar, Sambalpur moved the Collector to reclaim Ac. 0.12 decimals of land, which is the subject-matter of the present dispute, from Sambalpur Municipality and to lease out the same to opp. party No. 5. The Collector accordingly moved the Sambalpur Municipality to surrender the land and after observing due formalities the land was surrendered to the Revenue Department. On 6.11.1982 the Tahasildar, Sadar, ? Sambalpur took possession of that land and the Collector Sambalpur granted lease of that land in favour of opp. party No. 5 on 12.11.1982, and a lease deed was executed on 28.11.1982. Since the petitioners did not vacate the said land, opp. party No. 4 initiated encroachment case bearing Encroachment Case No. 7/4-62 to 7/4-70 of 1998 against the petitioners and in those cases eviction orders were passed. The petitioners preferred appeal against the orders of eviction, but their appeals were dismissed. Thereafter they preferred revision, but the revision did not yield any fruitful result. Then the petitioners filed grievance petition before opp. party No. 3 on 16.11.1996 and they were asked to produce the relevant documents before opp. party No. 4. After enquiry opp. party No. 4 did not find any merit in the grievance petitions and served notice on the petitioners asking them to vacant the disputed premises within 7 days. Aggrieved by the grant lease in favour of opp. party No. 5 and the eviction orders passed against them, the petitioners have preferred the present writ petition.

(3.) According to the petitioners they are earning their livelihood by running modest business on the disputed land paying licence fee to the Municipality and though they have never violated any terms of the licence nor have they indulged in any illegal activity, opp. parties 3 and 4 arbitrarily passed orders for their eviction. The petitioners have accordingly prayed to quash the lease granted in favour of opp. party No. 5 and to issue a writ mandamus directing opp. parties 3 and 4 to lease out the disputed land in their favour.