PRIYAMBADA MOHAPATRA Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dtd. 22/7/2022 passed by the Asst. Settlement Officer (Rental Colony, Bhubaneswar) in Rent Objection Case No. 39 of 2019.

(2.) Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that the property in question was leased out to one Sailabala Mishra vide WLL Case No. 517/1970. The property was also mutated subsequently in her favour and ROR was issued. The lessee, after obtaining necessary permission from the competent authority vide Misc. Case No. 31 of 1980, sold away a portion of the property measuring Ac. 0.088 decimals to one Rajalaxmi Mohanty vide RSD No. 3022 dtd. 27/4/1981. Said Rajalaxmi Mohanty alienated the land in favour of Anusuya Mohanty vide RSD dtd. 7/8/1982. The petitioner purchased the property from said Anasuya Mohanty vide RSD dtd. 5/7/2005. The petitioner subsequently converted the purchased land from agricultural to Gharabari in OLR Misc. Case No. 8484 of 2009, which was duly intimated to the ASO in Form-K. The petitioner thereafter constructed her residential house over the purchased plot. The Misc. Case in question was initiated pursuant to order dtd. 13/8/2019 passed by this Court in W.P.(C). No. 13561 of 2019. In the meantime, a Parcha was issued in favour of the petitioner but subsequently, the land was shown in the Government Khata. The petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C). No. 13561 of 2019, which was disposed of directing the Asst. Settlement Officer to ascertain as to whether the lease still exists or the same was cancelled by the Government before recording of the land in the name of the petitioner. Accordingly, the Misc. Case in question was initiated by the Asst. Settlement Officer on 6/9/2018. The petitioner was represented by her husband on different dates and pursuant to direction of the authority also filed the relevant documents. Ultimately, by order dtd. 22/7/2022, the Asst. Settlement Officer observed that the petitioner is not cooperating with the Court being absent for more than five times. It was also observed that the petitioner could not produce the lease sanction order of the Tahasildar, trace map and lease confirmation order and therefore, the authority was not inclined to 'alienate' the land from the Government Khata in absence of relevant lease documents.

(3.) Heard Mr. A.C.Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.S.Routray, learned Additional Standing Counsel.