SUBALA TARAI Vs. COLLECTOR, PURI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Subala Tarai in O.J.C. No. 16823 of 2001 and the petitioner Diriba Swain in O.J.C. No. 16824 of 2001 have prayed to quash the impugned common order dated 01.10.2001 of the Addl. District Magistrate, Puri passed in O.G.L.S. Revision No.92 of 1999 and O.G.L.S. Revision No.113 of 1989 respectively invoking power under section 7-A(3) of the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 (hereafter 'O.G.L.S. Act') in cancelling the leases sanctioned in favour of the petitioners by the Tahasildar, Puri.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioners that they were landless persons and belonged to scheduled caste community. The forefathers of the petitioners were in possession of Government land for last sixty to seventy years. The Tahasildar, Puri (opposite party no.3) with the aid of his staff verified the eligibility of the petitioners for grant of lease of the land in the year 1974 in Lease Case No.5465 of 1974 and Lease Case No.5462 of 1974. It was duly proclaimed by beat of drum and the local Gram Panchayat was also consulted. Public objection was invited by the Tahasildar but there was no objection from any quarter whatsoever. Consequently in the year 1975-76, Ac. 02.00 dec. of land in Mouza-Jagadal, P.S.-Brahmagiri, TahasilPuri Sadar, Dist.-Puri was settled in favour of each of the petitioners by the Tahasildar which were subsequently recorded in the names of the petitioners through mutation by the Tahasildar.

(3.) Mr. Kali Prasanna Misra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the grounds taken by the Addl. District Magistrate, Puri in cancelling the leases are based on no materials and no reasonable opportunity of hearing as provided under the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 7-A of 1962 Act was granted and on surmise and suspicion, the opposite party no.2 has passed the impugned order. The notices were defective and the petitioners were kept in darkness about the nature of the proceedings and they were not supplied with the relevant documents which have resulted in causing serious prejudice to the petitioners. According to Mr. Misra, it is stipulated in the second proviso to sub-section (3) of section 7-A of the O.G.L.S. Act that no proceeding under this sub-section shall be initiated after the expiry of fourteen years from the date of the order passed by the subordinate authority and therefore, the initiation of the revision proceeding in the year 1999 is illegal. It is contended that since the impugned order violates the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 so also Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, it should be quashed. Mr. Kishore Kumar Misra, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate refuting the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners on the other hand supported the impugned order and contended that after receipt of the notices, the petitioners engaged their counsel who submitted written note of argument and therefore, the non-compliance of opportunity of hearing as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not acceptable. He further submitted that gross irregularities were committed while granting lease of lands to the petitioners. The eligibility of the lessees for grant of lease was not enquired into, no public objection was invited by beat of drum, the signature of Tahasildar was found to be fictitious, the proclamation copy was not available in the case records and the lease orders were passed in cyclostyled formats. In the order sheet, it was found that neither the marginal date has been given nor the Presiding Officer has given the date while signing the order sheet. It is contended that when fraud has been committed in obtaining the lease, limitation aspect cannot be taken into consideration and therefore, the writ petitions should be dismissed.