SARATA KUMAR SAHOO Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second round of litigation to this Court by the petitioner seeking to quash the revisional order, Annexure -6 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar (opp. party No. 1) in Revision Case No. 49 of 1980 under section 7 -A(3) of the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), whereby the Revisional authority upset the order of the Tahasildar (opp. party No. 2) settling one acre of land in his favour. Revenue village Patia adjoins State capital Bhubaneswar. The land in question appertaining to holding No. 493, plot No. 196 of village Patia to the extent of Ac. 1.00 which had been earlier leased out by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar was Government land. In the revenue record -of -rights it was recorded as "Thorny jungle". The petitioner who belongs to altogether a different village in the district of Puri namely Phulnakhara had applied in a cyclostyled form for settlement of Ac. 2.00 of land from the aforesaid plot. Admittedly he does not belong to either Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. He is a business man having income of Rs. 3,000/ - per annum when he applied for settlement of the land as mentioned in the application. The lower court record reveals that on receipt of the said application, Lease Case No. 2118 of 1979 was registered on 11 -2 -1980 and on the same day public notice inviting objection was ordered to be issued. Further, the local Revenue Inspector was also asked to submit a report. The case was then adjourned to 18 -3 -1980. On that date no order was passed by the Tahasildar. It was only on 23 -8 -1980 that the record was placed before him on which date he "passed final orders settling the land in question with the petitioner.

(2.) THE Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar (opp. party No. 1) on examination of the entire record, initiated a Suo motu Revision and issued notice to the petitioner to show cause why the settlement of land made in his favour be not cancelled. Pursuant to the said notice, the petitioner appeared through his counsel and upon hearing, the Additional District Magistrate passed order cancelling the lease. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner approached this Court in O.J.C. No. 1332 of 1982. Since specific grounds of illegality or irregularity in settling the land by the Tahasildar had not been specifically mentioned in the notice issued to the petitioner to enable him to have his say, the Court quashed the said order and directed the opp. party No. 1 to issue a fresh notice indicating the grounds in more details as also to give him further opportunity to show cause and then to dispose of the case afresh on merit. Consequent upon such direction the opp. party No. 1 issued a fresh notice in a format indicating his prima facie satisfaction of non -observance of the statutory requirement by the Tahasildar while settling the land in question. On receipt of the notice the petitioner filed objection stating inter alia that irregularity pointed out in the notice was against the weight of the evidence on record. As regards the settlement of land in question, it was his case that the Tahasildar having considered his eligibility to get the Government land on lease, settled the same on the basis of the guidelines framed by the Government. He has also asserted that there was due proclamation of general notice inviting objection before settlement was made. The opp. party No. 1 upon hearing the petitioner and on perusal of the lower court records passed the impugned order and set aside the lease.

(3.) BEFORE the Act came into force, Government waste lands were being settled under Executive instructions as well as customary practice and usage prevalent in various parts of the State. Therefore, in order to have uniformity of principles in the settlement of such lands the Act was enacted in 1962 Section 3 of the Act prescribes the power to be exercised by the Government regarding settlement of the land. Sub -sections (2) and (3) of section 3 prescribe the manner of settlement of the Government land. These two provisions relevant for the purpose are quoted below: - -