Orissa High Court
Unknown vs Addl on 31 July, 2018
Author: C.R. Dash
Bench: C.R. Dash
W.P.(C) NO.9951 OF 2007
09. 31.07.2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner
and learned ASC.
The petitioner in this writ application
has impugned an Order passed by the learned Addl.
District Magistrate, Bolangir U/S. 7-A(3) of the Orissa
Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 (for short
"The OGLS Act").
It is fairly submitted at the Bar that, the
present case is covered by the Judgment of this
Court in the case of Madhaba Seth vs. Addl.
District Magistrate (Land Reforms), Bolangir and
another, 1990 (1) OLR- 307.
Learned ASC, however, submits that,
the petitioner having approached this Court after 17
years of the impugned order passed, the writ
application should be dismissed on the ground of
delay.
Learned Addl. District Magistrate, while
exercising the power U/S. 7-A(3) of the Act, remitted
the lease case to the learned Tahasildar, Titilagarh to
find out, what are the defects in grant of lease. The
Tahasildar reported that, there is defect relating to
proportionate leasing out of the land to each of the
lessee.
Learned Addl. District Magistrate,
without giving any further reason, passed the
impugned order, after being satisfied himself about
the illegality and irregularity by merely recording the
finding that, the Tahasildar has granted lease illegally
and irregularly. Such a subjective satisfaction by the
learned ADM has been deprecated in the reported
Judgment of Madhaba Seth in para- 3 & para- 5.
This Court, in the said case, has
discussed the illegality done by the learned ADM
himself in cancelling the lease granted in favour of
the petitioner relying on the provisions contained in
Section- 2 of the Orissa Government Land Settlement
(Amended) Act, 1976. This Court, however, held that
the impugned Order was passed within the
prescribed period. On thorough analysis of the
provisions of the Act and the defects in the impugned
order, this Court in Madhaba Seth's case has
quashed the impugned order and the lease in favour
of the petitioner therein has been restored.
The petitioner, in the present case, is
also one of the persons, who was granted lease by the
Tahasildar, Titilagarh along with aforesaid Madhaba
Seth, petitioner in the case reported in 1990 (1)
OLR- 307. It is not disputed that, the petitioner is on
the same footing with Madhaba Seth and the
impugned order assailed in the aforesaid case is also
same in the present case.
So far as the question of delay raised by
the learned ASC is concerned, we feel inclined to
observe here that, when a proprietary right of a poor
man is in question, the procedural lapses like delay
should not be attached much importance in a
Certiorari proceeding and to grant substantive right
to a harassed person, such procedural lapses can be
ignored for the sake of equity and fair play.
Regard being had to all the facts and
submissions, the impugned order vide Annexure- 2 is
unsustainable in the eye of law and the same is
quashed. There will however be no order as to cost
for this proceeding.
The writ application is accordingly
disposed of.
Urgent certified copy of this Order be
granted as per rules.
...............................
C.R. Dash, J.
...............................
Subha J.P. Das, J.