The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 30576 OF 2024 (An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India) ***** Diptish Kumar Das …… Petitioner State of Odisha and others …… Opp. Parties -Versus- Advocates appeared: For Petitioner : Mr. S. Sunil Kanta Nayak, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. Manmaya Kumar Dash, Additional Standing Counsel CORAM : MR. JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO --------------------------------------------------- Heard and disposed of on 21.07.2025 --------------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T By the Bench: 1. The Petitioner in this writ petition seeks to assail the order dated 29th April, 1999 (Annexure-3) passed by learned Additional District Magistrate, Khurda in Revision Case No.57 of 1998 initiated under Section 7A(3) of the Odisha Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 (for brevity ‘the Act’).
Legal Reasoning
2. Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that one, Golak Bihari Samantray, being Ex-army personnel, was leased out Ac.5.00 decimals of land in Plot No. 67 under Khata No.237 situated in Mouza Similipatana under Bhubaneswar W.P.(C) No. 30576 OF 2024 Page 1 of 8 // 2 // Tahasil in the district of Khurda (for brevity ‘the case land’), to order dated 2nd June, 1977 of Tahasildar, pursuant Bhubaneswar in W.L. Lease Case No.179 of 1977. A lease deed was also executed in favour of the lessee observing the formalities. After expiry of the period of restrictions to transfer the land mentioned in the lease deed, the lessee, namely, Golak Bihari Samantray for his legal necessities alienated Ac.0.100 decimals out of the case land to the father of Petitioner by executing Registered Sale Deed dated 13th September, 1994 (Annexure-2) and delivered possession to the father of Petitioner. Since then, the Petitioner is in possession over the land his father has purchased out of the case land exercising his right, title and interest thereon. Proceeding under Section 7A(3) of the Act in Revision Case No.57 of 1998 was initiated alleging material irregularities in leasing out the case land in favour of the vendor of the Petitioner. Although notices were issued to the vendor of the Petitioner, but no notice, whatsoever, was served on the Petitioner to contest the proceeding although learned Additional District Magistrate, Khurda was aware of the fact that separate parcels of the case land had already been sold to different persons including the father of the Petitioner by the time the suo motu revision, i.e., Revision Case No.57 of 1998 was taken up for adjudication. Alleging material irregularities in settling the land in favour of the vendor of the father of the Petitioner, learned Additional District Magistrate held that the lease granted in W.L. Lease Case No.179 of 1977 was illegal W.P.(C) No. 30576 OF 2024 Page 2 of 8 // 3 // and irregular. Learned Additional District Magistrate, therefore, set aside the order dated 2nd June, 1977 of Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar settling the case land in favour of the vendor of the father of Petitioner. Consequently, the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar was directed to correct the Record of Right (RoR) and take over possession of the case land. Accordingly, the case land was taken back to the government khata (record) by correcting the RoR. 2.1 When the RoR of the case land, out of which the father of Petitioner had purchased Ac.0.100 decimals, was recorded in government khata, the Petitioner filed Revision Case No. 689 of 2022 under Section 15(b) of the Odisha Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 before the Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack for correction of RoR. At the stage of argument of the said revision, it came to light that the lease granted in favour of the vendor of the Petitioner was cancelled and the case land was taken to government khata pursuant to the direction in Revision Case No.57 of 1998. Hence, finding no other alternative, the Petitioner has filed this writ petition. As such, there occurred
Decision
some delay in filing the writ petition, which is bona fide and not intentional. 3. Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that at the time of purchase, the father of Petitioner had verified the records, i.e., the order passed in W.L.L. Case No.179 of 1977 settling the case land in favour of Golak Bihari Samantray, who was an Ex-army personnel and the RoR published in his name W.P.(C) No. 30576 OF 2024 Page 3 of 8 // 4 // together with allied documents such as rent receipts etc. On a bona fide belief that the said Golak Bihari Samantray was the rightful owner in possession of the case land, the father of the Petitioner had purchased Ac.0.100 decimals out of the case land and was delivered with possession. Learned Additional District Magistrate while discussing the case in the impugned order under Annexure-3, had categorically observed that the vendor of the father of the Petitioner had sold the land to different persons. Thus, the Revisional Authority, at the time of adjudication of the revision, had knowledge that the case land had already been sold to different persons including the father of Petitioner by the time the revision was taken up for disposal. As such, learned Additional District Magistrate ought to have provided an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. 4. It is further submitted by Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the Petitioner that learned Additional District Magistrate had no jurisdiction to initiate suo motu revision under Section 7A(3) of the Act, as the lease was granted as per the Government Grants Act, 1895. From the order sheet of W.L.L. Case No.179 of 1977, it is also clear that the procedure prescribed under the Government Grants Act, 1895 was followed by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar while settling the case land in favour of the vendor of the father of Petitioner. These aspects were brushed aside by learned Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar while adjudicating Revision Case No.57 of 1998. As such, the impugned order under Annexure-3 is per se illegal and is W.P.(C) No. 30576 OF 2024 Page 4 of 8 // 5 // without jurisdiction. Hence, he prays for setting aside the impugned order under Annexure-3 and to direct the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar to correct the RoR in respect of the land, the father of the Petitioner has purchased, in his name. 5. Mr. Pattnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate supporting the impugned order under Annexure-3, submitted that the mandatory provisions provided under the Act as well as the Odisha Government Land Settlement Rules, 1972 was not followed while granting the lease in favour of the vendor of the Petitioner in W.L.L. Case No.179 of 1977. Elaborating his submission, Mr. Pattnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that perusal of the order sheet of W.L.L. Case No.179 of 1977 clearly reveals that there are material irregularities in settling the case land in favour of Golak Bihari Samantray, the vendor of the father of the Petitioner. Proclamation was not made in accordance with law. As such, the lease granted in favour of the vendor of the father of the Petitioner was irregular and was rightly cancelled by setting aside the final order dated 2nd June, 1977 (Annexure-1) passed by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar in W.L.L. Case No 179 of 1977. 5.1. It is his submission that since the lease itself was illegal and irregular and suffered from material irregularities, any alienation of the case land or portion thereof in favour of the father of the Petitioner or any other person(s) is per se illegal. He, however, submits that the field enquiry report of the concerned R.I. revealed that the lessee, namely, Golak Bihari W.P.(C) No. 30576 OF 2024 Page 5 of 8 // 6 // Samantray had sold the case land to different persons. The field enquiry report was also taken note of by learned Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar at the time of adjudication of Revision Case No.57 of 1998. He, further submits that adhering to the principles of natural justice by providing opportunity of hearing to the father of Petitioner would have been an empty formality. Thus, no illegality was committed by learned Additional District Magistrate in cancelling the lease without providing any opportunity to the Petitioner. As such, the writ petition merits no consideration and is liable to be dismissed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record placed before us. 7. From the record, it reveals that the case land was leased out in favour of the vendor of the Petitioner, namely, Golak Bihari Samantray, pursuant to the order dated 2nd June, 1977 passed by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar in W.L.L. Case No.179 of 1977. While entertaining the lease case, the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar relied upon the Resolution No.19431 dated 26th April, 1977, wherein concession by the Home Department was granted for allotment of land in favour of Jawan, like the vendor of the Petitioner. Alleging material irregularity in settling the case land in favour of the vendor of the father of the Petitioner by way of lease, suo motu proceeding under Section 7A(3) of the Act was initiated on the file of learned Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar in Revision Case No.57 of 1998. W.P.(C) No. 30576 OF 2024 Page 6 of 8 // 7 // 7.1. Perusal of the impugned order dated 29th April, 1999 (Annexure-3) reveals that the Revisional Authority, namely, learned Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar was aware of the fact that the case land, which was leased out in favour of the vendor of the father of the Petitioner, namely, Golak Bihari Samantray had already been sold to different persons by the time said revision was taken up for adjudication. Thus, the father of the Petitioner, being the purchaser of a parcel of the case land, should have been given an opportunity of hearing at the time of adjudication of the revision. Certainly, the impugned order under Annexure-3 takes away a valuable civil right of the Petitioner without affording him an opportunity of haring. 8. Although Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the lease in favour of Golak Bihari Samantray was granted under the provisions of the Government Grants Act, 1895, but from the record available before this Court, it is not clear under which provision of law, the lease was granted in favour of said Golak Bihari Samantray in W.L.L. Case No.179 of 1977. The same is a matter of enquiry. It further appears that the Revisional Authority had not discussed, as to how, the proclamation made was irregular and there are material irregularities in settling the land in favour of the vendor of the Petitioner. 9. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order under Annexure-3 suffers from violation of principles of natural justice. Had the Petitioner been given an W.P.(C) No. 30576 OF 2024 Page 7 of 8 // 8 // opportunity of hearing, he could have brought to the notice of the Revisional Authority the contentions which are being raised in this writ petition and in that event, the final order passed in Revision Case No.57 of 1998 might have been different. 10. Accordingly, the impugned order under Annexure-3 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar for adjudication of Revision Case No.57 of 1998 afresh giving opportunity of hearing to the persons likely to be affected including the Petitioner and other legal heirs of his father if any, and said Golak Bihari Samantray or persons claiming under him. 11. This writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. 12. The consequential RoR, recording the case land in government khata, be kept in abeyance till disposal of the Revision Case No.57 of 1998. Urgent certified copy of this judgment be granted on proper application. (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge (Savitri Ratho) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RANJAN KUMAR SETHI Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 29-Jul-2025 10:17:20 Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated, the 21st July, 2025/RKS W.P.(C) No. 30576 OF 2024 Page 8 of 8