SANDHYA ROUT Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. BCC. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Kar learned Addl. Standing Counsel.

(2.) THE facts of the case reveal that one Binod Bihari Das having made an application for settlement of Government land being a landless person, the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar -Opp.Party No. 3 in the writ petition initiated W.L. Case No. 2129 of 1979 and after following the procedure as prescribed under the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), settled a piece of land measuring Ac. 1.00 situated in mouza Malipada under Khata No. 428 Plot No. 149, in his favour. Accordingly, lease of the above land was granted in favour of the said Binod Bihari Das. The said land was subsequently mutated in favour of the said Binod Bihari Das in the record of right and he was recorded as an occupancy tenant over plot No. 149/1172 under Khata No. 365/ 10 measuring Ac. 1.00.

(3.) MR . Panda, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order appears to have been passed pursuant to the order of this Court in O.J.C. No. 9449 of 1993 (Safat Kumar Sahu v. A.D.M. and Ors.). He further submitted that though Section 3 -B of the Act does not specifically provide for affording an opportunity of hearing to the present owner of the lease hold land but nevertheless resumption of lease under Section 3 -B being an action to take away the right of the person from enjoying the lease hold land, the order of resumption should not be passed without hearing the present owner of the land. He further contended that the impugned order dated 16.11.2002 clearly goes to show that during the spot enquiry, the Addl. Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar gathered knowledge that the original lessee has transferred his land but even then no attempt has been made by the Addl. Tahasildar to enquire and find out as to who are the present owners of the land and no opportunity was given to the petitioners of being heard in the proceeding under Section 3 -B of the Act.