CHANCHALA TRIPATHY Vs. TAHASILDAR, BBSR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) "The petitioner has filed this writ application with the prayers;

(2.) According to Mr. Rout, learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner applied before the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (opposite party no.1) for taking lease of Ac.0.200 decimals of land for homestead purpose. Opposite party no.2 after maintaining proper procedure and complying the provisions laid down in Orissa Government Land Settlement Rules, 1974 passed the order granting lease of an area measuring Ac.0.200 decimals of land appertaining to Khata No.606, Plot No.55 in Mouza-Patrapada in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, under Annexure-1 the Record of Right was issued in favour of the petitioner on payment of salami. Mr. Rout also submitted that the land in question was leased out /settled in accordance with G.O. No.6672/GC(GL) 358-72-R dated 20.10.1972. According to him, the aim and object of the said instruction/order was distribution of land available at the disposal of Government and settlement of unobjectionable encroachments and also to simplify the procedure for expeditious disposal of lease and encroachment cases. While such was the position, opposite party no.2. who happens to be the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaeswar initiated Revision Case No.256/1982 under Section 7-A(3) of the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 for short "the Act" against the petitioner and on 6.6.1983 cancelled the lease granted by opposite party no.1 in favour of the petitioner vide Annexure-2. From the said order of opposite party no.2 under Annexure-2, the petitioner came to know that the lease granted in her favour has been cancelled on account of non-compliance of Rule 3(3) and Rule 3(4) of the Orissa Government Land Settlement Rules, 1974. Challenging the order under Annexure-2, the petitioner filed the present writ application on 6.8.2001. According to Mr. Rout, since the lease was granted by opposite party no. 1 in accordance with lease principles delineated under G.O. No.6672/GC(GL) 358-72-R dated 20.10.1972, the said order could not be set aside by opposite party no. 2 while exercising his power under Section 7-A(3) of the Act. Thus, the impugned action was without any jurisdiction. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, under Section 7-A(3) of the Act, the Collector may on his own motion or otherwise can call for and examine the records of any proceeding in which any authority subordinate to him has passed an order under the Act. Since in the instant case the lease was granted by opposite party no.1 under the lease principles, therefore, opposite party no.2 had no authority to revise the same under the Act.

(3.) Mr. J.P. Patnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the writ application. According to him in the present case, the impugned order was passed on 6.6.1983 and the writ application was filed on 6.8.2001, i.e., more than eighteen years after the impugned order was passed. No explanation whatsoever was there in the writ application explaining such inordinate delay. Accordingly, Mr. Patnaik prayed that the present writ application ought to be dismissed.