Bharat Nayak v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
The writ petition is allowed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 77. The writ petition is allowed. There is no order as to costs. (DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE (M.S. RAMAN) JUDGE Laxmikant Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LAXMIKANT MOHAPATRA Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 03-Aug-2023 15:18:59
Judgment
Petitioner Mr. P.K. Mohanty-2, Advocate Opposite Parties Mr. L. Samantaray, AGA Order No. 09. CORAM: DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN ORDER 03.08.2023 This matter is taken up by hybrid mode.
The order dated 27.08.1987 passed in Revision Case No.359 of 1987 has been impugned in the present writ petition. The Petitioner was granted lease of land extending of Ac.1.000 dec in Plot No.461 under Khata No.320 of Mouza-Jagasara by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar in W.L.L. case No.1062/1976.
It is contended by the Petitioner that when he is in peaceful possession over the said plot of land having mutated the R.O.R. in his name and paid the rent regularly, the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar initiated suo motu Revisioin Case No.359 of 1987 for resumption of the land without any valid ground. On 27.08.1987 by a cryptic order, the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar cancelled the lease granted in favour of the petitioner in W.L. Lease Case No.1062/1976.
Having perused the impugned order under Annexure-2, it reveals that the order of cancellation of lease has been passed in purported exercise of jurisdiction under Section 7-A(3) of the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act, 1962. Though it is found in the impugned order that the inquiry report indicates mistake of fact, fraud, misrepresentation and material irregularity of procedure, but the same has not been found discussed in the order itself. The order of the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar is a short one.
Further perusal of the same shows that it has been passed in a mechanical way without assigning specific reasons. The only two grounds stated in the impugned order for cancellation of lease that no proper inquiry has been conducted by the Tahasildar and the proclamation inviting objections has not been properly served, are not found satisfactory compliance of law for cancellation after twelve years of grant of lease. It was incumbent upon the Revisional Authority to assign specific reasons of fraud or material irregularity.
Thus, in our opinion, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and accordingly, it is quashed.
Operative part
The writ petition is allowed. There is no order as to costs. (DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE (M.S. RAMAN) JUDGE Laxmikant Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LAXMIKANT MOHAPATRA Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 03-Aug-2023 15:18:59
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The writ petition is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Orissa Government Land Settlement Act, 1962.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.