RAMA CHANDRA SAHOO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS these two writ petitions involve similar question of law and fact, they are heard together and are disposed of by this common order. Since the dispute purely relates to the question of law and the opp. parties in both the writ petitions are State authorities and are represented by the learned Addl. Government Advocate, we do not find any necessity to issue notice to the opp. parties, which is accordingly dispensed with.

(2.) WE have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the State.

(3.) PURSUANT to the said orders, the R.O. Rs. were corrected in respect of the properties settled in favour of the petitioners as is evident from Annexure -3 to the writ petitions. It further transpires that when the petitioners remained in possession of the said land and continued to pay rent for the same to the Government, Suo motu Revisions under Section 7 -A (3) of the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 (for short 'the O.G.L.S. Act') were initiated by the Collector, Jagatsinghpur being O.G.L.S. Revision Case Nos. 28 of 2004 and 24 of 2004. By orders dated 11.8.2005, the said Collector, Jagatsinghpur set aside the purported leases granted in favour of the petitioners.