Orissa High Court
Kulamani Mishra vs State Of Orissa Represented Through Its ... on 18 January, 2018
Author: B.K.Nayak
Bench: B.K.Nayak
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA:CUTTACK
W.P. (C) No.11674 of 2014
In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950.
-------
Kulamani Mishra ......... Petitioner
Versus
State of Orissa, represented through it's
Secretary, Revenue Department
and others ......... Opposite Parties
For Petitioner : M/s.Krushna Ch. Dash and
T.Nanda
For Opp. Party : Mr.B.K.Bhuyan
Additional Government Advocate
(For Opposite Parties 1 to 4)
Mr.Satyajit Mohapatra
(For Opposite Party No.5)
.........
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K.NAYAK
AND
THE HON'LE DR. JUSTICE D.P.CHOUDHURY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of hearing:28.11.2017 Date of judgment:18.01.2018
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. D.P.Choudhury, J. Challenge has been made to the order dated
20.07.2013passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar in Revision Case No.867 of 1998 wherein the lease granted to the original lessee has been cancelled.
2. FACTS The factual matrix leading to filing of the instant writ petition is that on 11.10.1974, on the application made by one Madhu Behera, Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar granted lease of a piece of wasteland vide W.L. Case No.1737 of 1974 appertaining to Plot No.647, Khata No.420 in -2- Mouza-Patharagadia measuring one acre of land having Sarad-III Kisam. It is alleged inter alia that on 12.01.1983, the original lessee Madhu Behera sold some portion of the leased out land to one Sarat Kumar Pattanaik and Kantilata Pradhan by way of registered sale deed. Said Sarat Kumar Pattanaik mutated his purchased land in his favour vide Mutation Case No.7160 of 1990. The Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar started suo motu proceeding under Section 7-A(3) of the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 (hereinafter called as "the Act, 1962") vide Revision Case No.867 of 1998 against the original lessee Madhu Behera. On 11.08.1998, the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar set aside the original lease without any valid and legal reasons. On 27.02.2006, this Court passed an order quashing the order dated 11.08.1998 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar in W.P.(C) No.248 of 2006 filed by said Sarat Kumar Pattanaik as the revision proceeding was initiated after fourteen years from the date of grant of lease, which is otherwise barred by limitation.
3. Be it stated that on 19.05.1998, the present opposite party no.5 (Srinibala Acharya) purchased an area of Ac.0.100 decimals from the 1st purchaser Kantilata Pradhan by way of registered sale deed. She also challenged the cancellation order passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar before this Court in W.P.(C) No.6359 of 2009. On 07.12.2009, a Division Bench of this Court passed order to quash the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar on 11.08.1998 and remanded the matter for disposal afresh by affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, who is the present opposite party no.5. On 23.12.2009, the present opposite party no.5 sold an area -3- of Ac.0.050 decimals out of the said purchased land to the present petitioner. On 20.07.2013, the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar, after de novo proceeding, declared the original lease in question granted by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar vide WL Case No.1737 of 1974 as illegal and improper. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the said order dated 20.07.2013 with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to record the said purchased case land in favour of the petitioner.
4. SUBMISSIONS Mr.Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order dated 20.07.2013 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Bhuabeswar in Revision Case No.867 of 1998 is illegal and improper on the ground that the said order has already been set aside by virtue of the order passed by a Division bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.248 of 2006 on 27.02.2006 on the sole ground that the Revisional Authority cannot exercise suo motu revision under Section 7- A(3) of the Act, 1962 much after fourteen years of grant of lease, being barred by time under the Act and Rules made thereunder. Since that order was quashed by this Court by virtue of the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 27.02.2006 in W.P.(C) No.248 of 2006, remand of the same case for the second time by virtue of the order passed by another Division Bench of this Court on 07.12.2009 in W.P.(C) No.6359 of 2009 and consequence thereof, further impugned order passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar is incognito and with incongruity as the original order was no more available to be heard de novo.
-4-
5. Mr.Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that even if assuming that this Court, being not aware of the earlier order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.248 of 2006, has remanded the case to the Revisional Authority, the State Government should have apprised the Court about quashing of the original order dated 11.08.1998 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar in Revision Case No.867 of 1998. After receiving the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.6359 of 2009, the Revisional Authority ought not to have passed any order in the original case which was non est due to the earlier order passed by this Court in the writ petition.
6. Mr.Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the impugned order also suffers from violation of principle of natural justice as enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution because the petitioner, being purchaser, has not been heard in the matter by the Revisional Authority although he is the purchaser of the case land before passing of the impugned order. So, he submitted that the impugned order may be quashed and the land purchased by the petitioner may be mutated in his favour.
7. Mr.Bhuyan, learned Additional Government Advocate for the opposite parties 1 to 4 very fairly submits that the earlier order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.248 of 2006 has not been brought to the knowledge of this Court neither by the petitioner nor by the State while hearing the subsequent writ petition, i.e., W.P.(C) No.6359 of 2009. When this Court has remanded the matter, de novo hearing was taken place after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner of that writ petition as the Additional District Magistrate, -5- Bhubaneswar has no other way than to hear the matter again. When the matter was remitted back for rehearing in pursuance of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.6359 of 2009, the petitioner has not purchased the case land from Kantilata Pradhan. Since he was not a party to the writ petition and purchased the land later on, the Revisional Authority has no occasion to hear him while disposing of the matter afresh on 20.07.2013. Apart from this, the Additional District Magistrate found fault with granting lease for which he has rightly set aside the lease granted by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar. When the impugned order is passed against the vendor of the petitioner, the order is also operative against the present petitioner as the petitioner is a lis pendency purchaser of the case land. Thus, Mr.Bhuyan, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State defends the impugned order passed by the Additional District Magistrate.
8. POINT FOR DETERMINATION The main point for determination is whether the impugned order dated 20.07.2013 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar in Revision Case No.867 of 1998 is liable to be quashed?
9. DISCUSSIONS It is admitted fact that on 11.10.1974, Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar granted lease of one acre of wasteland to one Madhu Behera in W.L. Case No.1737 of 1974 appertaining to Plot No.647, Khata No.420 in Mouza-Pathargadia having Sarad-III kisam. It is not in dispute that the original lessee Madhu Behera sold some portion of the leased out land to one Sarat Kumar Pattanaik and Kantilata Pradhan by way of separate registered sale deeds. It is also not in dispute that said -6- Sarat Kumar Pattanaik mutated the purchased land in his favour vide Mutation Case No.7160 of 1990. It is found from the counter affidavit filed by the opposite party no.5 that she had purchased Ac.0.100 decimals of land from Kantilata Pradhan, who had purchased the said land out of lease hold land from the original lessee, Madhu Behera. Her purchase relates back to the year 1998 and she has sold Ac.0.050 decimals of land out of Ac.0.100 decimals on 23.12.2009 to petitioner.
10. It is the contention of Mr.Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of cancellation passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar also does not indicate about hearing on the matter by impleading opposite party no.5 from whom also the petitioner purchased Ac.0.50 decimals of land prior to cancellation of lease.
11. The said order dated 11.8.1998 passed in Revision Case No.867 of 1998 was again disputed by aforesaid Sarat Kumar Pattanaik in W.P.(C) No.248 of 2006, who is also affected by such order and this Court on 27.02.2006 passed the following order:
"3. 27.02.2006. Heard Mr. Patnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate.
The facts of the reveal that land measuring Ac.1.000 in plot no.647 under Khata no.420 in mouza Pathargadia, Bhubaneswar was leased out to one Shri Madhu Behera by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar in W.L. Case No.1737 of 1974. The order granting such lease was passed on 11.1.1974 by the said Tahasildar in the above case. Subsequently on 12.1.1983 the said lessee Madhu Behera by executing a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner sold Ac.0.100 out of the lease-hold property and delivered possession of the same. It appears that after purchase of the above property, the name of the petitioner was mutated in the Record of Rights pursuant to the order passed by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar in Mutation Case No.7160 of 1990. A suo motu proceeding under Section 7-A (3) of the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was initiated by the Additional District Magistrate, Khurda, Bhubaneswar with respect to the said lease-hold land leased out in favour of the original lessee Madhu Behera in the aforesaid W.L. Case. The said revision case was numbered as Lease Revision Case No.867 of 1998 and by order dated 11.8.1998, the Additional -7- District Magistrate, Khurda, Bhubaneswar set aside the order dated 11.1.1974 by virtue of which the land was leased out in favour of the original lessee by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar.
Mr. Patnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Gopal Das Agrawal v. State of Orissa & others, 2005(100) CLT 661 submits that the present case is squarely covered by the said decision in which this Court has held that a suo motu revision under section 7-A(3) of the Act cannot be initiated beyond 14 years from the date of grant of lease as the said period of limitation is prescribed in the said section 7-A of the Act.
We find forc in the contention of Mr. Pattnaik as in the present case though the lease was granted by order dated 11.10.1974, the suo motu revision under section 7-A (3) of the Act was initiated much after 14 years, i.e., in the year 1998 and, therefore, was barred by time and the Additional District Magistrate, Khurda, Bhubaneswar could not have initiated the said Lease Revision Case No.867 of 1998.
We accordingly, quash the order dated 11.8.1998 passed in Lease Revision Case No.867 of 1998 by the Additional District Magistrate, Khurda, Bhubaneswar annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed."
As the aforesaid order shows that this Court found suo motu revision initiated under Section 7-A(3) of the Act, 1962 was barred by time in the year 1998. So, by virtue of the order passed by this Court on 27.02.2006, entire revision proceeding vide Revision Case No.867 of 1998 initiated by the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar to cancel the lease in question for the entire area of one acre of land was quashed. On the other hand, the order of lease passed by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar in favour of the original lessee Madhu Behera vide WL Case No.1737 of 1974 stands good.
12. However, very interesting fact is that said order of cancellation was also in dispute before this Court in W.P.(C) No.688 of 2005 filed by one Pravati Nayak where she claimed to have purchased Ac.0.120 decimals of land out of the leased hold out land on 22.03.1983 under registered sale deed. Pravati Nayak has taken a plea in that case -8- that she has not been heard in that matter for which this Court, on 05.04.2005, passed the following order:
"5. 05.04.2005 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for the opposite parties 1 to 3.
2. Order passed on 11.08.1998 in Lease Revision Case No.867 of 1998 by the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.2) under Section 7-A (3) of the O.G.L.S. Act, 1962 is under challenge. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that since the aforesaid order has been passed without giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, it violates the principles of natural justice and equity. After coming to know about the ex part order, the petitioner wants to file an application before the A.D.M., Bhubaneswar with a prayer for re-hearing of the aforesaid Revision Case. Learned Additional Government Advocate has no objection to that submission.
3. In view of the aforesaid facts, we dispose of this Writ Petition and the Misc. Case with the observation that if any such application is filed by the petitioner within a period of three weeks hence, learned A.D.M., Bhubaneswar may do well to dispose of the same in accordance with law.
4. In view of that, as prayed for by the petitioner, we directed the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 not to take any coercive action against the petitioner with respect to the disputed land for a period of three weeks from today and to consider the application of the petitioner for interim protection, if filed, strictly in accordance with law, on which we express no opinion."
The aforesaid order shows that on being a petition for intervention being filed, the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar would do well to dispose of the same in accordance with law. Thus, the Court has not expressed any opinion upon the merit of the case.
13. However, the present opposite party no.5 being petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.6359 of 2009 challenging the order dated 11.08.1998 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar in Revision Case No.867 of 1998 because she was not a party to the earlier writ petition, i.e., W.P.(C) No.248 of 2006. It is true that she has challenged the same order, which has already been quashed by a Division Bench of -9- this Court vide order dated 27.02.2006 passed in W.P.(C) No.248 of 2006. The order passed by another Division Bench of this Court on 07.12.2009 in W.P.(C) No.6359 of 2009 is placed below for reference:
"2. 7.12.2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate.
The petitioner, in this writ petition, has assailed the order dated 11.8.1998 passed by opposite party no.2, the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar in Lease Revision Case No.867 if 1998 under Annexure-4. Under the said order, it appears that the learned Additional District Magistrate exercising powers under Section 7A(3) of the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 ('the Act' in short) cancelled the lease granted by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar in favour of one Madhu Behera in respect of land measuring Ac.1.000 in plot no.647 under Sabik Khata No.420 of village Pathagadia in W.L. Case No.1737 of 1974.
It is the case of the petitioner that the original lessee being in need of money to repay loan sold 100 decimals out of the leasehold Ac.1.000 land leased out in his favour to one Kantilata Pradhab by registered sale deed dated 12.1.1983 who in turn sold the same to the petitioner by registered sale deed no.2642 dated 19.5.1998. It is the further case of the petitioners that after purchase, she remained in peaceful possession of the purchased land and while pursuing the matter before the settlement authorities to mutate the land in her favour, the same was not granted on the ground that the lease in favour of the original lessee has been cancelled by the Additional District Magistrate in Revision Case No.867 of 1998 and the land has been resumed. The petitioner has claimed that she had no knowledge of cancellation of the lease by the impugned order passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar.
Sub-section 3 of Section-7A of the Act prescribed as follows:-
"The Collector may, on his own motion or otherwise, call for and examine the records of any proceeding in which any authority, subordinate to it has passed an order under this Act for the purpose of satisfying himself that any such order was not passed under a mistake of fact or owing to a fraud of misrepresentation or on account of any material irregularity of procedure and may pass such order thereon as he thinks fit.
Provided that no order shall be passed under this sub-section unless the person affected by the proposed order has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter.
Provided further that no proceeding under this sub-section shall be initiated after the expiry of fourteen years from the date of the order."
- 10 -
On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar has not made any attempt to comply with the first proviso to Section 7A(3) of the Act, as quoted above, by calling for information from the office of the Sub-Registrar as to whether in the meantime, the lease- hold property or any portion thereof has been alienated by the original lessee tp any other party. Had such a report been called for, the revisonal authority could have ascertained that the petitioner has purchased in the interregnum the land from one Kantilata Pradhan who had purchased the same from the original lessee and thereupon the ADM should have issued notice to the petitioner, who is the real affected party, in order to comply with the said first proviso of Section-7A(3) of the Act. Nothing of the sort has been made by the ADM before passing the impugned order.
We find that in the instant case, though the sale was effected by the original lessee in favour of Kantilata Pradhan who sold the same in favour of the petitioner, the impugned order dated 11.8.1998 (Annexure-4) has been passed by the ADM without issuing any notice to the petitioner. Hence, we are of the view that the impugned order is not sustainable being contrary to the provisions of the Act. The said order under Annexure-4 is, therefore, quashed and the matter is remanded to the opposite party no.2 for disposal afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed."
The aforesaid order does not disclose that State has brought to the knowledge of this Court about the earlier order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.248 of 2006. Even if the opposite partyno.5 was not party to the earlier writ petition but the State should have come forward with clean hand to apprise the Court that Revision Case No.867 of 1998 does not exist after quashing of the same by an order of a Division Bench of this Court passed in W.P.(C) No.248 of 2006. Since the revisional order relates to the entire area of one acre leased out to the original lessee Madhu Behera and by such order the entire lease has been cancelled, the State should have brought to the notice of the Court about the earlier order. On the other hand, State had suppressed material fact to bring same to the knowledge of the Court and accordingly after quashing of the revisional order, this Court remanded
- 11 -
the matter to the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar for de novo disposal.
14. However, it is very interesting to go through the impugned order dated 20.07.2013 passed by the Additional District Magistrate in Revision Case No.867 of 1998, which is reproduced in the following manner:
"ORDER 20.07.2013.
The present Lease Revision Case was re-opened pursuant to the orders of Hon'ble High Court dated 05.04.2005 in W.P.(C) No.688 of 2005 and 07.12.2009 passed in W.P.(C) No.6359 of 2009. The kind order of the Hon'ble Court dated 07.12.2009 passed in the writ petition as mentioned above is as follows:
"We find that in the instant case, though the sale was effected by the original lessee in favour of Kantilata Pradhan who sold the same in favour of the petitioner, the impugned order dated 11.8.1998 (Annexure-4) has been passed by the ADM without issuing any notice to the petitioner. Hence, we are of the view that the impugned order is not sustainable being contrary to the provisions of the Act. The said order under Annexure-4 is, therefore, quashed and the matter is remanded to the opposite party no.2 for disposal afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed."
Heard the learned counsels appearing for the opposite parties. Brief history of the case as stated and argued by the learned counsels are as follows:
(i) That on Madhu Behera S/o Bhubani Behera, Village-Patharagadi PS-Chandaka applied to the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar for settlement of Government wasteland for agricultural purpose claiming himself as a landless person.
(ii) Learned Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar initiated Wasteland Lease Case No.1737 of 1974 and settled the following schedule of land in favour of the lessee Khata No.325/57 Plot No.647/1649, Mouza- Patharagadia Area:Ac.1.000 dec Kisam-
Sarad-III.
- 12 -
(iii) That the ADM, Bhubaneswar on 23.06.1998 started suo-motu Revision case U/s 7-A(3) of the OGLS Act bearing No.867 of 1998 issuing notice to the opposite party.
After being heard, the case was decided on the basis of inquiry report of A.S.O. and examination of records.
(iv) That challenging the order of ADM dt.
11.08.1998, one Smt. Pravati Nayak who purchased the land from the lessee vide registered sale deed No.2748 dt. 22.03.1983 and mutated the said piece of land in her favour preferred writ bearing no.688 of 2005 before the Hon'ble High Court and after hearing both the parties Hon'ble High Court quashed the impugned order made by the ADM Bhubaneswar and remitted the matter to this Revisional Court for hearing and disposal as per law.
(v) That during the process of hearing another purchased named Sinibala Acharya of village Samsarpur Dist-Cuttack who purchased another portion of the leased land from one Kantilata Pradhan who purchased the land from the original lessee Sri Madhu Behera filed another writ petition No.6359 of 2009 before the Hon'ble High Court and after hearing the Hon'ble Court quashed the impugned order dt. 11.08.1998 passed by the ADM, Bhubaneswar in Revision Case No.867/98 and remitted the matter to this Revision Court for hearing and disposal as per law after giving opportunity to the preset petitioner.
In obedience to the orders of the Hon'ble High Court, the revision case was reopened and notice was issued to the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar vides No.817 dt.29.04.2005, No.15 Dt.06.01.2006, No.485 dt. 10.03.2010, No.2000 dt.25.10.2010, No.482 Dt.17.04.2012, No.770 dt.22.04.2013 to submit the LCR No.1737 of 1974 and fresh enquiry report on the status of the land.
Despite such repeated communications, the Tahasildar Bhubaneswar failed to produce the LCR and sent an enquiry report by forwarding the inquiry report of Revenue Inspector without any view which is incomplete. With utmost regard and respect to the orders of the Hon'ble High Court to dispose of the case, this case is adjudicated on its own merit without LCR and incomplete inquiry report made by R.I. At length opposite parties argued to confirm the lease sanctioned in favour of lessee vide W.L. Case No.1737 of 1974.
After going through the revision case, it was ascertained that this revision case was initiated in pursuance to the directives in the proceeding held on 11.2.1998 in the chamber of Commissioner-cum-Secretary communicated vide L.N.8673/R dt.17th February, 1998. After going through the
- 13 -
LCR, the Revisional Authority observed the following irregularities.
i) Enquiry has not been caused properly by the Tahasildar as required u/r 3(3) of the OGLS Rules, 1974
ii) Proclamation inviting objections has not been properly published by beat of drum nor has a copy of it been supplied to the Grampanchayat in which the land is situated as provided u/r 3(5) of the OGLS Rules, 1974.
iii) The settlement is made without observance of the provisions of Sec.3(2) of the Act wherein it is provided that 70% of the Govt. Land should be settled in favour of the SC/ST people of the village.
iv) The order of priority in settlement of the land as envisaged in Sec. 3(3) of the Act has been violated.
v) It has not been ascertained on enquiry if the O.P. is landless and if he has no other profitable means of livelihood in order to be eligible for settlement of land under the Act and Rules in force.
vi) The application for lease was made for plot no.1288 of the village, whereas the lease has been granted out of plot no.647.
The field report of ASO also disclosed the fact that the land was lying fallow.
I agree with the previous observations of this Court. Further the report of the Revenue Inspector, Chandaka forwarded by Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar reveals that the lessee was not landless at the time of sanction of lease because of his family members possessed Ac.3.515 dec of land in Khata No.30 bearing plots 158, 1018, 1010, 1005 and 1009 in the Mouza- Patharagadia and Ac.2.770 dc in Khata no.247 having plot Nos.1387 and 13971 which has been verified from the BHULEKH data base of Revenue and Disaster Management Department web site. The definition of landless agriculture labourer as contained under Section 2(b-1) of OGLS Act (Act 2 of 1990) provides that he or any member of his family owns no land excluding homestead and his total annual income together with the total income of all the members of his family who are living with him in common mess from all sources does not exceed three thousand and six hundred. Hence, the above facts and circumstances clearly proves that the ex lessee was not eligible for settlement of government land in his favour for agricultural purpose.
The lease made is illegal and so also the subsequent sale of lease Government land."
- 14 -
The aforesaid impugned order clearly shows that the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar has not quoted the order of this Court passed in W.P.(C) No.248 of 2006 for the reasons best known to him. It is not known how the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar went upon to consider the matter as per the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.688 of 2005. Since the revisional order dated 11.08.1998 has been quashed being barred by time vide order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.248 of 2006, question of rehearing of the same matter does not exist. A dead man cannot come out of the grave yard. It appears from the entire episode, as discussed above, that the State has played fraud with the Court by suppressing the material fact of quashing of the impugned order by this Court at the earlier occasion.
15. The question arises that what would be the effect of the order dated 07.12.2009 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.6359 of 2009. It is well settled in law that an order passed either not apprised before the Court or being suppressed by either of the party of the earlier order of the Court, the same can be rectified in subsequent order of concurrent Bench. The order dated 07.12.2009 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.6359 of 2009 shows that the order dated 11.08.1998 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar has been quashed and we keep the order of that Division Bench to that extent and further remand of the matter by this Court becomes non-executable because the matter no more exists by virtue of the order passed by the earlier Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.248 of 2006. So, with due regard to the order dated 07.12.2009 passed by this Court, we find the
- 15 -
order passed on 11.08.1998 by the ADM, Bhubaneswar has already been quashed, which are never being revived to pass the order on 20.07.2013 because of the reasons, as discussed above.
16. Besides, it is found that neither in the order dated 11.08.1998 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar that opposite party no.5, who is the vendor of the petitioner was heard nor in the impugned order dated 20.07.2013, the petitioner was heard by the Revisional Authority for which the impugned order dated 20.07.2013 also suffers from violation of principles of natural justice on the petitioner and as such violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
17. In terms of the above discussion, we are of the view that the impugned order dated 20.07.2013 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar in Revision Case No.867 of 1998 is liable to be quashed. The point is answered accordingly.
18. CONCLUSION In the writ petition, it has been prayed that order dated 20.07.2013 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar in Revision Case No.867 of 1998 should be quashed and the opposite parties be directed to record the name in favour of petitioner in so far as his purchased land is concerned.
19. Since the order dated 20.07.2013 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar in Revision Case No.867 of 1998 is liable to be quashed, the Court do so. When the order dated 11.08.1998 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar in Revision Case No.867 of 1998 no more exists by virtue of the order of this Court passed in W.P.(C) No.248 of 2006 and the lease granted in favour of the
- 16 -
original lessee Madhu Behera stands valid, subsequent purchases by Kantilata Pradhan, opposite party no.5 and the present petitioner cannot be said to be illegal. As such, we direct the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar, opposite party no.4 to record the land in favour of the petitioner in so far as his purchased land is concerned within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
...................................
Dr.D.P.Choudhury,J.
B.K.Nayak, J I agree.
...................................
B.K.Nayak,J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Dated the 18th Day of Jan,2018/B.Nayak