Mr. JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA Mr. JUSTICE v. NARASINGH Order No
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.22925 of 2016 1) Sibendra Sahoo 2) Debendra Sahoo …. Petitioners Mr. S. Mishra, Advocate …. Opposite Parties -versus- 1) State of Odisha 2) Collector, Khurda 3) Director of Estate and Ex-Officio Addl. Secy. to Govt., G.A. Dept., Bhubaneswar 4) Rajalaxmi Sahoo 5) Suryakanti Sahoo 6) Geeta Sahoo 7) Kabita Sahoo 8) Mamata Sahoo 9) Choudhury Dhananjay Mohapatra 10) Choudhury Surya Narayan Mohapatra 11) Kasturi Mohapatra 12) Choudhury Jibanllav Mohapatra 13) Gouri Sahoo 14) Purnima Mohapatra 15) Narayan Chandra Pradhan 16) Antarjyami Sahoo 17) Bidyutprava Sahoo 18) Lokanath Beura 19) Sudipta Kumar Mitra 20) Narayan Sethi Mr. S. Mishra, ASC
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: Mr. JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA Mr. JUSTICE V. NARASINGH Order No. 12. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
Decision
ORDER 27.11.2024 Page 1 of 5 2. Order dated 20.08.2016 under Annexure-12 passed in OEA Revision Case No.05 of 2013 initiated under Section 38-B of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) is under challenge in this writ application whereby learned Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack by allowing the Revision set aside the order dated 08.03.1961 passed by the OEA Collector- cum-Tahasildar, Cuttack in OEA Case No.13 of 1959-60 for settlement of the land, holding that it was obtained by practicing fraud. 3. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioners, submits that the land in question was settled in favour of their father’s vendor Choudhury Keshab Chandra Mohapatra in OEA Case No.13 of 1959-60 under Annexure-1. Such settlement was made by taking into consideration that the vendor of the Petitioners father was an ex-intermediary. After settlement of the land under, he sold the property to the father of the Petitioners vide Registered Sale Deed No.1566 dated 07.03.1962 and delivered possession thereof. Since then the father of the Petitioners and after him the Petitioners were in possession over the case land. On the basis of a reference by the Collector, Khurda, OEA Revision Case No.05 of 2013 was initiated by the Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack. Although it is observed in the impugned order under Annexure-12 that after settlement of the land, the case land was alienated to different persons by the settlee, namely, the vendor of the father of the Petitioners but no step was taken to issue notice to the vendees and their legal heirs including the Petitioners and the impugned order has been passed. The OEA Revision Case was initiated after 54 years of settlement. The basis of forming opinion that the order of settlement was obtained by fraud was that the order sheet on which Page 2 of 5 the order was printed by the Government Press of the State Government in the year 1969 and the settlement was made in the year 1961. Further, it was observed that neither rent role in respect of the case land was prepared nor any rent was settled in respect of the case land. Had any opportunity of hearing been given to the Petitioners, they could be in a position to apprise the facts. During pendency of the Revision under Section 38-B of the Act, the vendor of the Petitioners’ father died and their legal heirs were substituted and impleaded as parties. But, no care was taken by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack to issue notice to the Petitioners who is ultimately affected by the order impugned herein. He, therefore, prays for setting aside the impugned order and to remit the matter to the Court of learned Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack for fresh adjudication of OEA Revision Case No.05 of 2013 providing opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners and similarly affected persons. 4. Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel, vehemently objects to the same. It is his submission that not only the observations as submitted by Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioners there are also other categorical findings of the learned Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack holding that the settlement made in favour of the vendor of the Petitioners’ father was obtained by fraud and the sale deed executed by him pursuant to such settlement is void ab initio. Initially the case land was under the Jungle Kisam. Thus, it could not have been settled in favour of vendor of the Petitioners’ father without following the due procedure of law. No such procedure appears to have been followed by the OEA Collector while passing the order of settlement. It is his submission that in view of the categorical finding of the learned Page 3 of 5 Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack in the order impugned herein, no fruitful purpose would be served by providing an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners. It will be an empty formality only. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. As such, he prays for dismissal of the writ application. 5. Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears from the impugned order under Annexure-12 that the learned Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack was conscious of the fact that after settlement of the case land in favour of Choudhury Keshab Chandra Mohapatra who was an ex-intermediary, he sold the case land to different persons including father of the Petitioners. Thus, in all fairness, learned Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack before proceeding with the case should have issued notice to the vendees or their legal heirs, who are ultimately affected by the order impugned herein. It also appears that the observation made by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack in the order impugned herein under Annexure-12, was not confronted to the Opposite Parties, namely, the legal heirs of the vendors of the Petitioners’ father. When a material is utilized against a person, he should be given an opportunity of hearing to have his say in the matter. It appears that the learned Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack has not adhered to such procedure. It further appears that there is delay of more than 50 years in initiating OEA Revision Case No.05 of 2013. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances as narrated above, this Court feels that the Petitioners as well as other similarly situated persons should have been given an opportunity of Page 4 of 5 hearing before the impugned order under Annexure-12 was passed. Thus, the order under Annexure-12 suffers from violation of principle of natural justice and is accordingly set aside. The matter is remitted to the learned Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack to adjudicate OEA Revision Case No.05 of 2013 afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners as well as other similarly situated persons who are likely to be affected. Since the Petitioners are represented by the learned counsel, in order to avoid further delay they are directed to appear before the learned Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack on 18.12.2024 along with certified copy of this order to receive further instruction in the matter. 7. In the meantime no third party interest shall be created in respect of the land in question till disposal of OEA Revision Case No.05 of 2013. 8. Accordingly, the writ application stands disposed of. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rules. (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge (V. Narasingh) Judge Ayesha Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYESHA ROUT Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 28-Nov-2024 11:14:16 Page 5 of 5