Orissa High Court
Kunu Munda vs Collector on 13 March, 2024
Bench: B.R. Sarangi, G. Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 10801 of 2016
Kunu Munda ..... Petitioner
Mr. S.K. Joshi, Advocate
Vs.
Collector, Bolangir and others ..... Opposite parties
Ms. Saswata Patnaik, AGA
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
MR. JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
ORDER
13.03.2024 Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
082. Heard Mr. S.K. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. S. Patnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 12.03.2016 passed by the Collector, Balangir under Annexure-1, whereby the lease sanction orders, in respect of Lease Case Nos. 532/95, 477/1955, 468/1995, 529/1995, 465/1995, 469/1995 and 541/1995 of Balangir Tahasil, have been cancelled and the order of resumption passed and lands were restored to its original holdings.
4. Mr. S.K. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the land in question had been settled under the lease principle, but the cancellation has been made under the OGLS Act, which cannot be sustained in the eye of law. To substantiate the same, he relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Chandra Kala Padi v. State of Odisha, 1997 (1) OLR 52. He further contended that the petitioner has not been noticed, therefore, the order impugned Page 1 of 5 cannot be sustained in the eye of law and, as such, the same is liable to be set aside.
5. Ms. Saswata Patnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State contended that the lease has been granted under the OGLS Act and accordingly action has been taken by the authorities by following OGLS Act for cancellation of the lease. As such, the contention raised by the petitioner that he has not been given opportunity of hearing is contrary to the records available. According to her, the persons, in whose favour the lands were allotted, were noticed and they had filed their reply. The Collector, having not been satisfied with the reply given by them, passed the order impugned. Therefore, the order so passed is well justified and need not be interfered with by this Court at this stage.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, as it appears the Government lands were allotted in favour of Sri Budu Barge, Smt. Malli Bhue, Sri Dayanidhi Munda, Sri Tahasil Jani, Smt. Tilottama Parabhue, Sri Benu Jani, Sri Budha Kuanar, w/o Ghasiram Kuanar for homestead purpose in lease cases of Tahasil Office, Balangir and delivery of possession of the allotted lands was handed over to the above beneficiaries and the Record of Rights were also prepared in their names with holding numbers. The details of the land schedule of the lands allotted to them are also reflected in the order. But instead of using the allotted lands for their homestead, by constructing house over the same, they sold out the the allotted lands and transferred to a particular person, namely the present petitioner. Therefore, resumption proceeding was initiated by the Collector, as because the lands allotted in favour of the lessee were not utilized for the purpose they had been granted, rather they had been sold. An inquiry was conducted and R.I., Kudasingha Page 2 of 5 furnished the report that there was violation of the prescribed principles of the OGLS Act, 1962 and the OGLS Rules, 1983. As such, the allottees were noticed to show cause as to why the allotted lands shall not be resumed by cancelling lease sanction order under the provisions of the OGLS Act and the Rules made thereunder. In response to the same, the allottees appeared and filed their written statement and participated in the proceeding. The Collector, having found that the lands have not utilized for the purpose they had been granted and ultimately the allottees sold the same to the present petitioner, passed the order impugned by resuming the lands in favour of the State. In paragraph-6 of the counter affidavit, it has been stated as follows.
" 6. That in the year 1995, with a view to enable the landless poor family to construct a dwelling house, land measuring an area of Ac.0.04 dec. were allotted to (1) Budu Barge (2) Mali Bhue (3) Dayanidhi Munda (4) Tahasil Jani (5) Tillotamma Prabhue (6) Benu Jani and (7) Budha Kuanr of village Kharlikani under OGLS Act, 1962 for construction of their dwelling houses. But, instead of settling themselves over the lands allotted, possession delivered, ROR 0ssued, they did not reside over the lands by constructing their dwelling houses and lastly sold away the same in favour of the petitioner.
As the allottees of the lands, violating the prescribed principles of OGLS Act, 1962 and OGLS Rules, 1963, the Collector, Bolangir after a thread bear hearing of the allottees in his order dated 12.03.2016 in suo-moto Lease Revision Case No. 06 of 2016 has been pleased to pass orders as under:
xxx xxx xxx Although right, title over the allotted lands have been conferred upon them, through sanction of lease and delivery of possession have been handed over, they have failed to possess the land and kept it vacant and abandoned and also not °ilised it for their homestead for quite a long period of about 20 years. fat all they are actual poor people and required the money urgently for the purposes as referred by them in Page 3 of 5 their written statements, they could have intimated the fact to any related revenue authority, even after salling the land instead of obtaining prior permission for saling the land. So, it is proved beyond doubt that all the above allottees have sold their allotted lands in contravention of the principles of OGLS Act and Rules. I am not convinced and satisfied with the defence furnished by the allottees in their written statements. Hence as per the powers conferred upon me under Sec. 7 (1) ii of the OGLS Act, 1962, I cancel the lease sanction order in lease case Nos. 532/1995. 4477/1995, 468/1995, 529/1995, 465/1995, 499/1995, 469/1995 and 541/1995 of Bolangir Tahasil and orde for resumption of the land allotted in the above cases and restoration of the allotted lands to its original holdings."
7. In view of the above, since the lease was granted under the OGLS Act and not on the basis of lease principle, therefore, the action has been taken under the OGLS Act for resumption/ cancellation and the same cannot be found faulted with. Therefore, the case law, which has been relied on by the petitioner, i.e., the decision in the case of Chandra Kala Padi (supra) does not apply to the present case.
8. So far as the notice to the present petitioner is concerned, the petitioner claims to be the subsequent purchaser of the land in the year 2011 and the proceeding having been initiated in the year 2016, he ought to have been noticed. It is apt to mention here that the notices had been issued to the lessees and they, having participated, filed their reply, but nowhere disclosed that they had sold the land in favour of the petitioner. However, in their reply they had assigned the reasons that they had sold the lands for medical treatment and marriage of their daughter, after possessing the allotted lands from 1995 to 2011. But nothing was placed before the Collector to the effect that the lessees had sold the land in favour of the present Page 4 of 5 petitioner. In absence of any material, the order impugned has been passed by the Collector, Balangir having not been satisfied with the reasons assigned by the lessees. But fact remains, if in the meantime the original lessees have sold the land in favour of the petitioner and he has not been noticed, he may have a grievance of non-extension of opportunity of hearing to him. But fact remains, the lands were allotted on lease for a specific purpose and the same had not been utilized for the purpose for which the same were granted in favour of the lessees. Even if the petitioner is the subsequent purchaser, stepping into the shoes of the lessees, he cannot claim that since the land had been granted on lease, the said land should be retained with him.
9. In any case, since no opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner, this Court sets aside the impugned order dated 12.03.2016 and remits the matter back to the Collector, Balangir to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and adjudicate the matter afresh by passing appropriate order in accordance with law.
10. With the above observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.
(DR. B.R. SARANGI)
JUDGE
Arun (G. SATAPATHY)
JUDGE
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA
Designation: ADR-cum-Addl. Principal Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 15-Mar-2024 17:11:59 Page 5 of 5