Orissa High Court
Hadu Paltasingh vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opp. ... on 3 September, 2024
Author: S.K. Sahoo
Bench: S.K. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P. (C). No. 20371 of 2024
Hadu Paltasingh .... Petitioner
Mr. Manoj Mishra, Senior Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and Others .... Opp. Parties
Mr. Arupananda Das, AGA
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
ORDER
Order No. 03.09.2024 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement
(video conferencing/physical mode).
2. Heard Mr. Manoj Mishra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. Arupananda Das, learned counsel for the State.
3. The Petitioner-Hadu Paltasingh has prayed for quashing the order dated 08.02.2024 passed by the Addl. District Magistrate, Khordha-Opposite Party No.3 vide Annexure-13 wherein it has been held that from the order dated 05.01.1981, nothing transpired as to whether the Tahasildar, Khordha (Opposite Party No.4) had taken any conscious step to arrive at a conclusion that the co- operative firming societies formed by landless agricultural labourers and landless agricultural labourers of village Nayakota have already been settled before settlement of land in favour of the Petitioner as the Petitioner is a resident of Village-Damanbhuin and not of Nayakota and that nothing has been mentioned as to whether the Petitioner is a resident of the adjacent village of Nayakota, the distance of Nayakota from Damanabhuin and as to whether he was in position to cultivate the land and therefore, it was held that the Tahasildar, Khordha has not followed the order of priority regarding settlement of land as mentioned under Section 3(3) of the OGLS Act. Accordingly, the order of the Opposite Party No.4 dated 05.01.1981 passed in WL Case No.938/1978-79 was set aside.
4. Mr. Manoj Mishra, learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner drew the attention of this Court to Annexure-9 which is the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Khordha dated 23.02.2010 and in the said order, though it has been mentioned referring to the report of the Tahasildar that the cause of action as to the cancellation arose when the matter came to the notice of the Tahasildar on 21.08.2009 and therefore, in view of the Page 2 of 5 period of review under Section 7-A(3) of the OGLS Act, 1962, from the said date, the revision is maintainable in the eyes of law, but in the very same page, it is mentioned that Tahasildar, Khordha conducted a detailed probe into the matter and he could ascertain that the Lease Case record was since long submitted to the court of ADM, Puri by the then Tahasildar in the year 1987 with a recommendation by the then Tahasildar for cancellation of illegal lease granted in favour of the Petitioner. It is the contention of Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate that lease deed was executed on 05.01.1981 and the second proviso to Section 7-A(3) of the OGLS Act, 1962 makes it clear that no proceeding under this sub-section can be initiated after expiry of 14 years from the date of order, even if the order has been passed under a mistake of facts owing to fraud or misrepresentation or on account of any material irregularity of the procedure, in other words, within a period of 14 years, the Collector can exercise the power to correct the same and not after that. He submits that the second proviso has been repealed in the year 2013 and since in the case in hand, the lease was granted on 05.01.1981 and it was within the notice of the authority in the year 1987 about the illegalities committed, if any, in the grant of lease, then the second proviso of section 7-A (3) of the OGLS Act,1962 as Page 3 of 5 it was then is very much applicable in this case and therefore, the OGLS Revision No.1 of 2009 which was initiated in this case under Section 7-A(3) of the OGLS Act, 1962 is beyond the period of 14 years is not maintainable in the eyes of law.
5. Issue notice on the question of admission indicating therein that the matter shall be disposed of at the stage of admission.
6. Learned counsel for the State submits that he has instructions to appear for all the Opposite Parties. Let five extra copies of the writ petitions be served on him by tomorrow.
7. List this matter in the week commencing from 30.09.2024.
Counter affidavit, if any, be filed in the meantime.
(S. K. Sahoo) Judge (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge Page 4 of 5 I.A. No.10715 of 2024
02. 1. Issue notice.
(S. K. Sahoo) Judge (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge AKPradhan/Bijay Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BIJAY KETAN SAHOO Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Page 5 of 5 Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 05-Sep-2024 10:21:59