AKSHAYA KUMAR BALA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE same Petitioners have filed these five Writ Petitions challenging the Orders Dated 27.02.1999 (Annexure -1) passed in Revision Case Nos. 6, 13, 5, 14 and 8 of 1985 under the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'OGLS Act') by which the Opposite Party No. 3 -Additional District Magistrate, Cuttack (hereinafter referred to as 'Revisional Authority') cancelled the original lease granted in favour of Opposite Party No. 5 whereby the sale deeds executed by said Opposite Party No. 5 in favour of one Chinmayee Bala (wife of Petitioner No. 1 and mother of Petitioners 2 to 6) became void on the ground that such action of Opposite Party No. 3 is wholly illegal and violative of the conditions laid down in the approved lease principles of the Government Circulars dated 20.10.1972 and 06.04.1974. In all these Writ Petitions since the issues involved are identical, with the consent of Learned Counsel for the parties, they are heard together and disposed of by this common Judgment.

(2.) SHORN of unnecessary details, the facts and circumstances giving rise to these Writ Petitions are that Opposite Party No. 5 along with others had applied for lease of Government land in the year 1974, as some of them were landless persons or the persons having less than five acres of land as provided in the approved lease principles of the government for settlement of government lands vide Circular No. 48597 dated 26.11.1961. Subsequent to the said Circular of 1961, the Government had issued two more Circulars, i.e., Circular No. 60792GE(GL) No. 18699GE(GL -II) 358/72 -R dated 20.10.1972 and Circular 12/74 -R dated 06.04.1974 in which certain amendments were made for grant of lease. After considering the lease applications of the applicants the Tahasildar, Athagarh (O.P. No. 4) granted lease of land in favour of Opposite Party No. 5. Before granting such lease, the Opposite Party No. 4 had duly invited objections on 18.02.1975. After expiry of proclamation period, since no objection was received, Opposite Party No. 4 sanctioned the said lease .in favour of Opposite Party No. 5 under Lease Case No. 815/1974 of Athagarh Tahasil in'the district of Cuttack. The said land was mutated in the name of Opposite Party No. 5 and the R.O.R. was accordingly issued in the name of Opposite Party No. 5. The rent of the land was being paid by Opposite Party No. 5 up to 1981 -82. Opposite Party No. 5 due to financial hardship sold the said land to one Chinmayee Bala, wife of Akshya Kumar Bala (Petitioner No. 1). In the year 1985, Opposite Party No. 3 initiated suo motu revision cases and cancelled the said lease under Section 7A(3) of the OGLS Act. In said suo motu revision proceedings, Petitioners were not intimated/noticed. The said Chinmayee Bala (wife of Petitioner No. 1) died in the year 1985 for which Petitioner Nos. 1 to 6 being legal heirs and successors -in -interest field Writ Petitions bearing O.J.C. Nos. 418/1997, 2385/1998; 6427/1.997, 429 of 1997 and 419 of 1997 challenging the orders of Opposite Party No. 3. This Court after hearing all the parties disposed of the Writ Petitions by setting aside the orders passed by Opposite Party No. 3 with direction to the Petitioners to appear before the Revisional Authority. Pursuant to orders of this Court, Petitioners appeared before Opposite Party No. 3 on different dates through their advocate and produced certified copy of the order passed by this Court. The Revisional Authority on 27.02.1999 finally rejected the claim of the Petitioners in respective Revision Cases upholding its earlier view. Hence, these Writ Petitions.

(3.) MR . D.R. Mohapatra, Learned Counsel appearing for the State, submitted that there was delay of about more than eight and half years in filing these Writ Petitions and, therefore, such inordinate delay should not be condoned. On this ground alone, the Writ Petitioners are liable to be dismissed. He further submitted that the Revisional Authority has ample power under Section 7A(3) of the OGLS Act to cancel such lease granted to any person if the same was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation etc. Revisional Authority has not committed any error in cancelling the registered sale deeds executed by Opposite Party No. 5 in favour of the Petitioners.