BISWAJIT JENA Vs. MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner seeks to assail the proceedings initiated by the Board of Revenue to recall its own order. The Board of Revenue by order 7.1.2005 passed in Misc. Case No. 12 of 2004 had directed the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar to correct the R.O.R. as per the order passed in W.L. Case No. 75 of 1979 within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order. This order is sought to be recalled by the State of Orissa through its Special Secretary, G.A. Department by filing an application before the Member, Board of Revenue which has been registered as Misc. Case No. 7 of 2007. Learned Member by Order Dated 10.9.2007 has stayed the operation of the Order Dated 7.1.2005 passed in Misc. Case No. 12 of 2004. The Petitioner seeks to assail quashing of the entire proceedings initiated in Misc. Case No. 7 of 2007 in the fife of the Member, Board of Revenue.

(2.) BEREFT of unnecessary details, the case of the Petitioner is that on 19.1.1979 the father of the Petitioner late Chakradhar Jena applied for a lease of Government land in village Patia under Khata No. 493, Plot Nos. 434, 436 and 295 for an area of Ac.1.94 dec. Accordingly, W.L. Case No. 75 of 1979 was registered and notice was issued inviting objection and the case was posted to 30.1.1979. But the case was not put up on 30.1.1979 and instead it was put up on 24.2.1979, when the following order was passed: 24.2.79: -The case is put up today. Istahar has been served duly. Objection period is over. No objection received. The report of R.I. has not been received. Ask Amin to report and put up on 24.3.79. Thereafter, the matter was put up on 24.3.79 and the Tahasildar passed the following order: 24.3.79: -Report of Amin received. Perused the report along -with reservation proceeding. The reservation proceeding of village Patia has been finalized by the settlement organization duly settlement operation. The R.O.R of the village has been finalized in the year 1973. The Plot Nos. 434,436,295 have been recorded as 'Kanta Jungle' in the R.O.R But it is not found place in the reservation proceeding. All Govt. lands in village Patia have been taken into account while preparing reservation proceeding and reservation has been made for specific purposes. This plot being recorded as 'Kanta Jungle' has not been reserved for any specific purpose after spot enquire reports that there is no forest growth over the land and cultivation except a portion measuring an area Ac. 1.94 decs. (full plot) is found surplus land after reservation of land for different purposes. As per paragraph 4(1) of the instruction for reservation of Govt. land for specific purposes, the surplus land after reservation will be available for settlement with tenants for agriculture purposes. Non -recording of this plots in the reservation proceeding finalized by the settlement organization is no doubt a mistake. Thus in the above circumstances there is no bar to lease out this plot to landless persons for the purpose of agriculture. The Istahar though duly published, no objection has been received during the stipulated period. The applicant in this case is a landless. In the meaning of lease principle and he is entitled for settlement of agriculture land. The following land is therefore settled in favour of Sri Chakradhar Jena, S/o Late Raghu Jena, Patia for agriculture purpose as per sketch map attached. He is liable to pay rent @ of 'BAGAYAT DUI' Land ScheduleName Mouza Khata Plot AreaSri Chakradhar Jena Patia 493 434 Ac.0.79 decs.S/o Late Raghu Jena 436 Ac.0.32 decs.295 Ac. 0.83 decsTotal Ac. 1.94 decs.

(3.) AS the said order was not implemented, the Petitioner filed a writ application in this Court which was registered as W.P.( C) No. 279 of 2007. A single Bench of this Court by Order Dated 26.2.2007 disposed of the Writ Petition at the stage of admission directing the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar to comply with the direction issued by the Member, Board of Revenue vide Order Dated 7.1.2005 in Misc. Case No. 12 of 2004.