BASANTA KUMARI PATI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA REPRESENTED THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF ORISSA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing Annexures 7 and 8 relating to cancellation of a long term lease for the purpose of pisciculture.

(2.) THE facts of the case may be stated in brief. The Petitioner obviously does not belong to fisherman caste and is a Brahmin housewife stated to be carrying on business in fish. She made an application to the Block Development Officer, Pipili (opposite party No. 3) on 20 -6.1984 for long term lease of a tank locally named as Ranapur Bilavarandia situate in village Dandamukundapur and under the management and, control of Dandamukundapur Grama Panchayat (opposite party No. 4). After observing all necessary formalities according to the rules, Opposite party No. 3 recommended to the Collector, Puri (opposite party No. 2) for grant of the long term lease in favour of the Petitioner. Opposite party No. 2 approved the lease by order dated 16.5 -1985 and the fact of such approval was communicated by opposite party No. 3 by letter No. 1353 dated 22 -5 -1985 to opposite party No. 4. Opposite party No. 4 in its turn under letter dated 31.5 -1985 (Annexure 2) communicated the fact of approval of the long term lease to the Petitioner and directed her to deposit the first instalment of premium of Rs. 238/ - for the year 1985 -86. The amount was deposited on 31 -8 -1985 and on 18 -3 -1986 lease deed (Annexure 3) was executed both by the Petitioner and the Sarpanch on behalf of opposite party No. 4, whereby the disputed tank was leased out in favour of the Petitioner for ten years beginning from 1985 -86 for the purpose of pisciculture. After the lease, the Petitioner took steps for renovation of the disputed tank and for pisciculture and obtained a loan of Rs. 23,605/ - from the State Bank of India, Pipili Branch and invested the amount. The second instalment of the premium of Rs. 238/ - was deposited by her on 19 -9 -1986., In this way the Petitioner took steps and did actions for the purpose of pisciculture on the strength of the lease of the disputed tank for a period of ten years.

(3.) WHILE Mr. M.M. Das, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, assailed Annexures 7 and 8 an the ground of their invalidity according to the rules, learned Counsel for the State and Mr. A. Pasayat far the other opposite parties urged that the Collector who had approved the long term lease was within the limits of his jurisdiction to have cancelled the same and satisfaction that the lease had been granted an misrepresentation of facts.