SRI PAWAN KUMAR CHEJRA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present case involves a long standing dispute between the parties which according to us, is not necessary to be narrated. The brief facts of the case which are necessary for deciding the issues involved in this case are as hereunder.

(2.) The extent of land which is the subject-matter of this case measures Ac.0.85 decimals and is a part of plot No.1672 which in toto, measures Ac.2.14 decimals, situated in civil station area of Sambalpur town. The said plot of land along with other lands are Nazul lands which were leased out by the State in the year 1933 in favour of Raja Shri Bhagaban Gango Tribhuban Dev (ruler of the ex-State of Bamara). In the year 1975, a lease agreement was entered into between the State of Orissa and said Raja precisely on 10.11.1975 for a period of 12 years with effect from 1.4.1972. The petitioner's case is that in the year 1976, his father was inducted as a tenant in respect of an incomplete construction and the appertaining land measuring Ac.0.05 decimals by virtue of an agreement executed on 1.8.1976 by the said lessee. Subsequently, the father of the petitioner began to possess a further area of Ac.0.80 decimals out of the said plot of land by obtaining oral permission from the lessee. On the death of the father of the petitioner, the petitioner claims to be in possession over the disputed land. It is the further case of the petitioner that during the life time of his father a small scale industrial unit registered under the Directorate of Industries was established by his father over the said land in the name and style of M/s. Orissa Cement Hard Works having a P.M.T. number and was manufacturing Hume Pipes, Water Tanks etc. During the life time of his father, he received a notice dated 13.7.1982 issued by the Tahasildar, Sambalpur purportedly in Renewal Case No.500 of 1969, directing the father of the petitioner to vacate the land and building occupied by him situated over the said plot, within three days from the date of receipt of the said notice failing which, the father of the petitioner would be evicted. Pursuant to the said notice, an objection was filed by the father of the petitioner. However, apprehending eviction, the petitioner approached this Court in O.J.C. No.1482 of 1982 which was disposed of by this Court by order dated 4.5.1989, inter alia, holding as follows:- "When the petitioner claims that he has not been heard and opposite parties have not produced any document in support of their assertion that he has been heard, the matter in the circumstances should be heard again. We accordingly direct opposite party No.2 to hear the petitioner and pass orders in accordance with law. Petitioner shall appear before opposite party No.2 on 22.5.1989 on which day the opposite party No.2 shall fix a date of hearing. Until the hearing concluded after giving opportunity to the petitioner, there shall be no interference with his possession." While the matter stood thus, the Tahasildar, Sambalpur on 19.9.1981 recommended for resumption of the suit land in the said Renewal Case No.500 of 1969, which was filed by the Raja (lessee) for renewal of the lease. The said recommendation was made to the Collector of the District and ultimately by order dated 4.1.1982, the lease was resumed. Pradipta Gangadeb (the then Raja of Bamra) challenged the said resumption order before the Revenue Divisional Commissioner (Northern Division), Sambalpur, Orissa in Misc. Case No.5 of 1982. The said Misc. Case was disposed of by order dated 3.3.1990 by which the Revenue Divisional Commissioner set aside the order of resumption passed by the Collector and allowed the said case. However, as the said lessee admitted that the portion of the suit land has been let out to different persons, the Revenue Divisional Commissioner directed the Collector to assess and realize rent for the lease hold land at commercial rate.

(3.) It appears that in the meanwhile an amendment was brought into the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the Orissa Government Land Settlement (Amendment) Act, 1990 (Orissa Act 1 of 1991). By the said amendment, the new Sub-section being Sub-section (4) was inserted after Subsection (3) of Section 3 of the said Act. In view of such amendment, an application was filed by the father of the petitioner under the said newly inserted provision before the Tahasildar for settling the piece of Nazul land under his possession on permanent basis. It is the case of the petitioner that even though the said application has been disposed of by the Tahasildar by order dated 16.3.1992, inter alia, holding that the father of the petitioner was a sub-lessee inducted by the lessee in the land in question which is a Nazul land since 1976, and is in peaceful and continuous possession since then and the petitioner has got the said land in question from his father along with the industrial unit by amicable family settlement in the year 1988. He was, therefore, entitled for settlement of the said land under his possession detailed in the said order of the Tahasildar in accordance with the newly inserted provision in the Act. The Tahasildar, thereafter, recommended the case of the petitioner for permanent settlement in accordance with the said amended provision.