Orissa High Court
Susanta Kumar Mohanty And Others vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... ... on 8 April, 2024
Bench: B.R. Sarangi, G. Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 22419 of 2014
Susanta Kumar Mohanty and others ..... Petitioners
Mr. S.K. Samantaray, Advocate
Vs.
State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Mr.S.S. Pradhan, AGA
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
MR. JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
ORDER
08.04.2024 Order No. This matter is taken up by hybrid mode.
03.
2. In this petition the Petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash order dated 02.08.2014 of the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar (Opposite Party No.2) under Annexure-8.
3. The Petitioners claim that they purchased a portion of the case land from the original lessee Ramesh Chandra Behera (Opposite Party No.6) vide a registered sale deed dated 16.05.1983. Opposite Party No.6 being a poor landless person, applied for grant of lease of land measuring Ac.1.000 decimal in Plot No.647/1646 under Khata No.420(325/54) of Mouza Patharagadia, P.S.-Chandaka in the district of Khurda. The Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar registered W.L. Lease Case No.1668 of 1974 and by order dated 11.10.1974 granted lease of the land in favour of Opposite Party No.6.
4. Then after lapse of 24 years, Lease Revision Case No.852 of 1998 was initiated by Opposite Party No.2-Additional District Magistrate in respect of the aforestated land in exercise of suo motu power under Section 7-A(3) of the Orissa Government Land Page 1 of 4 Settlement Act, 1962 (OGLS Act). By order dated 2nd August, 2014, the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar directed to set aside the lease granted in favour of Opposite Party No.6 in W.L.L. Case No.1668 of 1974 and further to correct the records of right (ROR) accordingly. Said order of cancellation of lease is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition.
5. The Petitioners aver that the order granting lease in favour of Opposite Party No.6 in 1974 by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar was granted following due process of law and in the meantime the ROR has been corrected in favour of the Petitioners after purchase from Opposite Party No.6. Further Opposite Party No.6 being a landless person, had been granted with the lease in due process of law and the same had also been recorded in his favour. But Opposite Party No.2 exceeding his jurisdiction, cancelled the lease after a long period without considering his status as a landless person even without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that despite clear prohibition under the law to initiate suo motu revision beyond a period of 14 years, Opposite Party No.2 cancelled the lease on frivolous grounds.
7. Mr. S.S. Pradhan, learned Additional Government Advocate supports the impugned order on the grounds stated therein.
8. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that, the suo motu revisional power was exercised under Section 7-A(3) of the OGLS Act to initiate the cancellation proceeding on 2nd August, 2014.
Section 7-A(3) of the OGLS Act has been amended in the year 2013. Prior to amendment it was as follows:
"7-A. Revision -
xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx (3) The Collector may, of his own motion or otherwise, call for and examine the records of any proceeding in which any authority, subordinate to it has passed an Page 2 of 4 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 or 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 subsection 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."
It was amended w.e.f, 13th November 2013 and the amended provision reads as under:
"(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law, the Collector may, on his own motion or otherwise, call for and examine the records of any proceeding, in which any authority subordinate to him has passed an order under this Act, for the purpose of satisfying himself that any such order was not passed under a mistake of facts or owing to a fraud or 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 subsection unless the person affected by the proposed order has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter."
9. Admittedly in the present case, the suo motu revision was initiated in 1998 after 24 years of grant of lease on 11.10.1974. The impugned order is silent regarding the reasons for initiating the suo motu proceeding after 24 years. Even opportunity of hearing was also not given to the Petitioners before passing the impugned order.
In the case of Nirmal Kumar Pattnaik v. State of Orissa 2012 (Supp.-II) OLR 450 and Smt. Elley Pattnaik v. State of Orissa 2012 (Supp.-II) OLR 506, where the suo motu revision under Section 7- A(3) of the Act were initiated beyond 14 years, this Court by applying the second proviso to sub-Section 3 of Section 7-A have Page 3 of 4 observed that no such proceeding can be initiated after 14 years and any such proceeding initiated beyond 14 years is unsustainable being without jurisdiction.
10. It is thus clear that, suo motu revision proceeding initiated by the Opposite Party No.2 in 1998 is barred by law of limitation and any such order, de hors the law of limitation, is not sustainable.
11. The reason assigned in the impugned order that the lessee was not a genuine beneficiary as his eligibility has not been assessed, is also not found sustainable. It is for the reason that not a single finding has been made by Opposite Party No.2 in the impugned order to show any ineligibility of the Petitioners. The learned Revisional Authority has not whispered a single word with regard to annual family income of the lessee to debar him from the eligibility criteria in his opinion. The doubts raised by Opposite Party No.2 in the impugned order are not seen substantiated with materials. So on such baseless assertions, the right enjoyed by the Petitioners for a considerable period of 24 years cannot be taken away in the guise of suo motu power.
12. In view of the discussions made above, the impugned order dated 2nd August, 2014 under Annexure-8 is quashed and the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.
(DR. B.R. SARANGI)
JUDGE
Signature Not Verified (G. SATAPATHY)
Digitally Signed
Signed by: PRIYAJIT SAHOO JUDGE
Designation: Jr. Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Priyajit
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Date: 09-Apr-2024 19:26:06
Page 4 of 4