MADHUCHLIANDA DAS Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner-Madhuchhanda Das challenges the validity of the order dated 21.7.1987 of the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar in Lease Revision Case No, 410 of 1986 (Annexure-7) setting aside the settlement of land measuring Ac. 1.00 with one Golak Majhi as well as the order dated 7.12.1994 passed by the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (Annexure-6) rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for mutation of the land in her favour.

(2.) As averred in the writ application, the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar by order dated 15.7.1974 settled land measuring Ac. 1.00 in plot No. 502 (renumbered as 502/1204) in khata No. 359 (renumbered as 255/64) located in Mouza Ogalapada with Golak Majhi (vide W.L. Case No. 2198 of 1973). The leasehold property was duly recorded in the R.O.R. in the name of the said lessee (Annexure-3). During the year 1982-83, the lessee-Golak Majhi died and his widow-Mini Bewa and his minor children succeeded to the property. As the widow and her children were in financial constraint, they moved the Revenue Officer-cum-Tahasildar under Section 22 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act seeking permission to sell Ac. 0.250 decimals out of the lease-hold land of Ac. 1.00 in favour of the petitioner. Their application was registered as Misc. Case No, 377 of 1986. The Revenue Officer after making due enquiry by order dated 10.11.1986 (Annexure-4) granted permission to the widow to sell the land. On the basis of the permission, Mini Bewa sold the land (Ac. 0.250) in favour of the petitioner for Rs, 5,000/- by regigstered sale-deed dated 26.12.1986 (Annexure-5), The petitioner took delivery of possession of the land. With a view to obtain loan for construction of residential house, she applied to the Tahasildar for mutation of the property in her favour vide Mutation Case No. 8356 of 1994. The Tahasildar, however, by order dated 7.12 1994 (Annexure-6) rejected the application for mutation on the ground that the disputed land is now under khata No. 359 as per the order of the Additional District Magistrate, The allegation of the petitioner is that she could know about the order of the Additional District Magistrate only in January, 1995 after her application for mutation was rejected by the Additional Tahsildar. According to the petitioner, the order of the Additional District Magistrate is illegal and without jurisdiction in as much as there was no notice to the petitioner and the initiation of the proceeding itself by him (Additional District Magistrate) against a dead person was void

(3.) In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Additional District Magistrate (opp party No. 2) it has been stated that Mini Bewa, the widow of the, original lessee appeared on 27.2.1986 and filted a petition for time which was allowed. Thereafter she(did not take any steps in the proceedings and ultimately by the impugned order dated 21 7 1987 the Additional District Magistrate set aside the order of settlement dated 15.7 19-74 of the Tahasildar made in favour of Golak Majhi It has been further pleaded that the widow ofthe original lessee did not disclose before the Additional District Magistrate that she had sold away a portion of the lease-bold property in favour of the petitioner and as such question of issuing any notice to her (petitioner) did not, arise