KRUSHNA CH PANDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. P. K. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. P. K. Mohanty, learned Addl. Government Advocate.

(2.) THE petitioners in the present application call in question the order of resumption of lease passed under Section 3 -B of the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar. The facts of the case reveal that in W.L. Case No. 1781 of 1978 initiated by an application filed by one Lingaraj Rath, after following due, procedure as prescribed under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, the land bearing Plot No.516/ 1679 under Khata No.489/48 measuring Ac.1,000 was leased out in favour of the said applicant. The name of the said lessee -Lingaraj Rath was recorded in the Record of Right in 'Sthitiban' status. While in possession of the said land, the original lessee -Lingaraj Rath sold a part of the same by a registered sale deed to one Subasini Barei. He also sold another portion of the said land to one Jayabana Kumar Singh. The said J. K. Singh, in turn, sold the said land to one Sushama Das. Petitioner No.1 - Krushna Chandra Panda has purchased the land to the extent of Ac.0.25 from Smt. Subasini Barei and petitioner No.2 - Laxmipriya Rath has purchased the land to the extent of Ac.0.45 from Smt. Sushama Das by registered sale deeds. It also appears that in Mutation Case No.5519 of 2001, the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar mutated the purchased land in favour of petitioner No.1.

(3.) MR . Rath on behalf of the petitioners contends that the impugned order having been passed after lapse of about 24 years, is vitiated under law. He further submits that no notice having been issued to the petitioners, the principles of natural justice have been violated and the concerned authority having allowed the mutation by recording the names of the petitioners in 'Sthitiban' status over the land, it would not be open for the Tahasildar to take recourse to Section 3 -B of the Act.