Orissa High Court
Pravat Ranjan Mallick @ vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 29 January, 2024
Bench: B. R. Sarangi, Murahari Sri Raman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.13033 of 2019
Pravat Ranjan Mallick @ .... Petitioner
Prabhat Ranjan Mallick
Mr. Bikash Jena, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. L. Samantaray, AGA
CORAM:
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DR. B. R. SARANGI
MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
ORDER
29.01.2024 Order No.
06. 1. The matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr. Bikash Jena, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. L. Samantaray, learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA) for the State--Opposite Parties No.1 to 3.
3. The Petitioner, who is a subsequent purchaser, has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 30th January, 2015 (Annexure-
2) passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar (in short 'ADM') in Lease Revision Case No.14 of 2014 under Section 7(A)(3) of the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'OGLS Act').
4. Mr. Jena has vehemently contended that the Petitioner is a subsequent purchaser of land in question and without issuing notice Page 1 of 5 to him and complying with the principle of natural justice by providing him an opportunity of hearing, the impugned order was passed. Accordingly, it is prayed that the impugned order may be quashed.
5. Learned AGA has stated that upon perusal of the order impugned itself, it is indicated that on receipt of the notice, the grandson of the original lessee appeared and sought time for his defence and thereafter he did not turn up. Even, the lessee, who had sold the land, did not appear in the case in subsequent dates of proceedings after their first appearance in the case. It is stated that even the notice has been issued and the subsequent purchasers have appeared but they have not participated in the proceedings and that itself cannot be construed as non-compliance of principle of natural justice.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the materials available on record, it appears that the State Government has leased out an area of Ac.1.000 decimal in Khata No.574/14, Plot No.1505/2399 in Mouza-Ghangapatana, Tahsil- Bhubaneswar, District-Khurda in favour of Lingaraj Dehuri, the original lessee, in 1966-67 vide W.L. Case No.616 of 1966-67, which has been erroneously mentioned as W.L. Case No.613 of Page 2 of 5 1966-67 in the impugned order. Accordingly, the land records maintained in the office of Tahsildar, Bhubaneswar has been corrected in the name of the aforesaid lessee. But, in the year 2014, the ADM-Opposite Party No.2 initiated a suo motu proceeding under Section 7(A)(3) of the OGLS Act and registered it as Lease Revision Case No.14 of 2014. The ADM, vide order dated 30th January 2015, cancelled the lease and resumed the land in question back to the Government record. By the time the impugned order was passed, Opposite Parties No.4 to 6 being the legal heirs of the original lessee for their legal necessities sold the land to the present Petitioner by executing a Registered Sale Deed on 19th December, 2007 and by virtue of the said Sale Deed, the Petitioner is in peaceful possession of the case land. The Petitioner came to know from the office of Tahsildar, Bhubaneswar that the land purchased by him was resumed by the Government in the aforementioned revision case and upon enquiry, it was found that the Government by initiating a suo motu revision proceeding, resumed the land in its favour. Being aggrieved by such action of the authority, the Petitioner challenged the impugned order dated 30th January, 2015 taking the ground that no opportunity of being heard was given to him while passing the impugned order of resumption of land in favour of the Government. Therefore, it has been contended that a Page 3 of 5 report was sought for from the District Sub-Registrar, Khordha to ascertain as to whether the land was sold by the lessee and more particularly, the Petitioner has not been made a party to the proceedings and no notice was issued to him even through the land has been sold to him in 2007. As such, it is contended that the Petitioner being an affected party, having not been given an opportunity of being heard in consonance with proviso to Section 7(A)(3) of the OGLS Act, the impugned order should be set aside.
7. On 13th August 2019, while entertaining this writ petition, an order was passed by this Court issuing notice to the Opposite Parties and also passed an interim order in I.A. No.10301 of 2019 granting "status quo as on date with regard to possession over the case land shall be maintained by the parties till the next date." Pursuant to such interim order, the Petitioner is continuing over the case land. Even through notice was issued to the State-Opposite Parties, no reply is forthcoming from them and so far as Opposite Parties No.4 o 6 are concerned, they have appeared through their counsel but at the time of call, none was present on their behalf, who sold the land in favour of the present Petitioner. Therefore, the Petitioner is in their shoes. As a result, the Petitioner, being the subsequent purchaser, ought to have given an opportunity of being Page 4 of 5 heard before passing the impugned order dated 30th January, 2015. The impugned order was passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. Merely mentioning that "the lessee having sold the land did not appear in the case in subsequent dates of proceedings after the first appearance in this case" cannot suffice the purpose.
8. In view of such position, it is incumbent upon the Opposite Parties-State to give an opportunity of hearing to the subsequent purchaser, who is now substantially affected by the order impugned. Thereby, the impugned order dated 30th January, 2015 cannot be sustained in the eye of law and the same is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded to the ADM to rehear the case by giving opportunity of hearing to the subsequent purchaser, the Petitioner herein and pass order in accordance with law.
9. With the above observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.
(DR. B. R. SARANGI)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
Signature Not Verified (M. S. RAMAN)
Digitally Signed JUDGE
Signed by: MRUTYUNJAYA
M. PandaPANDA
Designation: Secretary
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 31-Jan-2024 16:57:03
Page 5 of 5