Orissa High Court
Unknown vs Hon'Ble The Chief Justice Mr. Mohammad ... on 2 December, 2020
Bench: Mohammad Rafiq, Biswanath Rath
W.P.(C) No. 30521 of 2020
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MOHAMMAD RAFIQ
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH
02. 02.12.2020 Mr. D.P. Pradhan, Advocate : For the Petitioner
Mr. A. R. Dash, AGA : for State-opposite parties.
ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the parties by Video Conferencing mode.
2. By way of this writ petition, petitioner- Abhimanyu Rout has challenged the orders dated 25.08.2020 and 03.09.2020 passed by the Collector, Jagatsinghpur in Lease Appeal Case No. 06 of 2020 cancelling Ac.0.04 decimals of leasehold homestead stitiban land granted in favour of the petitioner by the Tahasildar, Kujang vide Lease Case No. 06- 124/2018.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after settlement of the land in question in favour of the petitioner by the Tahasildar, Kujang vide order dated 18.12.2018 and after the same being confirmed by the Sub-Collector, Jagatsinghpur, the opposite party No.2 - Addl. Tahasildar, Kujang, for the reason best known to him, filed the aforesaid appeal before the Collector, Jagatisinghpur on 08.04.2020 i.e. after expiry of about one and half years. The limitation period for filing the appeal is 30 days, however, the -2- Collector, Jagatsinghpur entertained the appeal without condoning the delay and allowed the appeal by cancelling the lease granted by the Tahasildar, Kujang, even without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is further submitted that in view of Section 7(1)(a) of the OGLS Act, against any order made under Section 3 or 3-B of the said Act, the appeal shall lie before the SDO i.e. Sub-Collector and not before the Collector, hence the impugned orders under Annexure-5 is also without jurisdiction and not sustainable in law.
4. On the other hand Mr. A.R. Dash, learned Addl. Government Advocate, at the outset submits that the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order of the Collector, Jagatsinghpur he may file a revision against the said order before the Revenue Divisional Commissioner and the writ petition is not maintainable when an alternative remedy before the revissional authority is available.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case of the petitioner, we dispose of this writ petition giving liberty to the petitioner to file the revision against the impugned orders -3- before the concerned Revenue Divisional Commissioner within a period of 30 days from today. If such revision is filed, the revisional authority shall entertain the same waiving the period of delay in filing the revision, and decide the same in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of filing of the revision petition, after providing opportunities of hearing to the petitioner and the opposite party No.2-Addl. Tahasildar, Kujang.
With the aforesaid observation and direction this writ petition stands disposed of.
As pandemic situation is continuing for COVID-19, learned counsel for the parties may utilize the soft copy of this order available in the High Court's website or print out thereof at par with certified copies in the manner prescribed, vide Court's Notice No.4587, dated 25.03.2020.
(Biswanath Rath) (Mohammad Rafiq)
Judge Chief Justice
A.Dash