Orissa High Court
WP(C)/8364/2007 on 15 March, 2021
W.P.(C) No. 8364 of 2007
17. 15.03.2021 1. Heard Mr. S.K. Purohit, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. M.S. Sahoo, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-Opposite Parties.
2. This writ petition was filed way back in 2007 questioning an order dated 17th November, 2004 (Annexure-1) passed by the Opposite Party No.1 (Collector, Sambalpur) under Section 7(A)(3) of the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 (OGLS Act) cancelling the lease sanctioned by the Tahasildar, Rengali (Opposite Party No.3) in favour of the present Petitioner in Jawan Lease Case No.1 of 1999.
3. It was observed by the Collector, Sambalpur that the Petitioner was not eligible for lease of government land as he had suppressed material facts in the lease application. The Collector found that the Petitioner was in fact not a landless person and that Petitioner's father owned landed property to the extent Ac 6.74 in village Thelkoloi, which was more than one standard of land as prescribed under Section 2(5)(a) of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 (OLR Act). Further, the Petitioner had not been separated from his father under Section 19 of the OLR Act.
4. This petition was listed initially on 18th September, 2007 and then kept adjourned for removal of defects. There was a long gap of more than ten years between 28th September, -2- 2007 and 21st January, 2018 and even then no notice was issued in the matter. Learned counsel for the Petitioner kept seeking adjournments on several dates in 2018 and 2019. When the matter was taken up on 25th August 2020, the Court was informed that a counter affidavit dated 23rd December, 2019 has been filed by the Opposite Parties.
5. When the matter was listed on 28th January 2021, the Court directed the State Counsel to serve a copy of the counter affidavit on learned counsel for the Petitioner to enable him to file a rejoinder affidavit by today.
6. Although learned counsel for the Petitioner has acknowledged having received the copy of the counter affidavit sometime in January 2021, learned counsel for the Petitioner states that when he tried to contact the Petitioner, he was not able to do so and therefore, there are no instructions on the averments in the counter affidavit.
7. In the counter affidavit, the Opposite Parties have pointed out that sufficient opportunity was indeed afforded to the Petitioner by the Collector, Sambalpur by issuing show cause notice to him on 2nd July, 2004 giving personal hearing on 22nd July, 2004.
8. Importantly, in para-12 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that:
-3-"12. That it is humbly submitted that the petitioner is a project displaced family (PDF) of M/s. Bhusan Steel Ltd. and he has availed all benefits i.e. one plot of an area Ac 0.13 decimals, one house as per Rehabilitation and Re-settlement policy and cash compensation in lieu of job.
Hence, it is prayed before the Hon'ble High Court of Odisha to uphold the order passed by the Collector, Sambalpur on dtd. 17.11.2004 in OGLS Revision Case No.02/2004 and quash the writ petition filed by Sri Santosh Kumar Nath."
9. Learned counsel for the Petitioner drew attention of the Court to a Division Bench decision of this Court in Girish Chandra Mohanty v. State of Orissa, 2013 (II) OLR 166 where inter alia it has been held that the OGLS Act could not be invoked for cancelling the lease granted in favour of a Jawan. On the facts of that case, it appears that the application was submitted on 9th May, 1967 and the eligibility of the applicant in that case was determined under the provisions of Government Grants Act, 1985 and not under the OGLS Act. However, in the present case, it is plain that the grant of lease in favour of the Petitioner was after the enactment of the OGLS Act.
10. In any event, the whole purpose of granting the lease in favour of a Jawan is only keeping in mind "those persons who actually need the land". In the facts of the present case, it is plain that the Petitioner was not a landless person. Added to this, in para-12 of the counter affidavit, it is pointed out -4- that as a Project Displaced Family (PDF) of M/s. Bhusan Steel Ltd., the Petitioner has availed all the benefits i.e. one plot of an area Ac 0.13 decimals, one house as per Rehabilitation and Re-Settlement Policy as well as cash compensation in lieu of job. Therefore, the essential requirement of a person being a landless person to be eligible for grant of lease under the OGLS Act does not appear to be satisfied in the present case.
11. The Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned order. The writ petition is dismissed.
( Dr. S. Muralidhar ) Chief Justice (B.P. Routray) Judge S.K.Jena/PA