Orissa High Court
Pramila Parida vs State Of Odisha & Others ..... Opposite ... on 19 January, 2024
Bench: B.R. Sarangi, Murahari Sri Raman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.41579 of 2023
Pramila Parida ..... Petitioner
Mr. Manmaya Kumar Dash, Advocate
Vs.
State of Odisha & others ..... Opposite parties
Mr. Debakanta Mohanty, AGA
CORAM:
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DR. B.R. SARANGI
MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
ORDER
19.01.2024 I.A. No.813 of 2024 Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
02.
2. This application has been filed by the Petitioner seeking modification of the order dated 09.01.2024.
3. Heard.
4. Considering the submission made and on going through the averments taken in the petition, some typographical error has been described in para-3 of the I.A. to the following effect:-
<i. In the 7th line of paragraph 3 in place of Opp. Party No.2, Opp. Party No.4 may be inserted. ii. In the 2nd line of paragraph 4 in place of Opp. Party No.1, Opp. Party No.3 may be inserted. iii. In the 6th line of paragraph 4 in place of 29.04.1998, may be replaced as 30.06.1998.
iv. In page-2 in favour of Opp. Party No. 6 be deleted. V. In 3rd line of paragraph-5 Opp. Party No. 1 may be replaced as Opp. Party No.3.
vi. In para-6 name of A.G.A be corrected. vii. In paragraph-9 last line 18 years be corrected as 24 Page 1 of 6 years.
viii. In paragraph 11 & 12 in place of Opp. Party No. 1, Opp. Party No.3 may be inserted.=
5. In view of the above, the prayer made in this I.A. is allowed and the order dated 09.01.2024 is recalled. A fresh order incorporating necessary corrections is passed today separately.
6. The I.A. stands disposed of.
(DR. B.R. SARANGI) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (M.S. RAMAN) JUDGE Page 2 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.41579 of 2023 Pramila Parida ..... Petitioner Mr. Manmaya Kumar Dash, Advocate Vs. State of Odisha & others ..... Opposite parties Mr. Debakanta Mohanty, AGA CORAM:
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DR. B.R. SARANGI MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN ORDER 19.01.2024 ORDER
03. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. In this petition the Petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash order dated 30.06.1998 of the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar (Opposite Party No.3) under Annexure-3 series.
3. The Petitioner claims that on consideration of his application for settlement of land for agricultural purpose measuring an area of Ac.1.000 dec. in Plot No.7259 under Khata No.2876 in Mouza -Andharua, Chandaka Police Station, Bhubaneswar Tahasil deposited Salami in Waste Land Case No.1793 of 1974 and accordingly, he was granted lease of land by Opposite Party No.4-Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar.
4. Then after lapse of 24 years, Lease Revision Case No.692 of 1998 was initiated by Opposite Party No.3-Additional District Magistrate in respect of the aforestated land in exercise of suo motu power under Section 7- A(3) of the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 (OGLS Act).Page 3 of 6
By order dated 30.06.1998, the Additional District Magistrate, Khordha, Bhubaneswar directed to set aside the lease in W.L.L. Case No.1793 of 1974 and further to correct the records of right (ROR) accordingly. Said order of cancellation of lease is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that despite clear prohibition under the law to initiate suo motu revision beyond a period of 14 years, Opposite Party No.3 cancelled the lease on frivolous grounds. Said counsel relied on the judgments of this Court in Nirmal Kumar Pattnaik vrs. State of Odisha, 2012 (Supp.II) OLR 450; Smt. Elley Pattnaik vrs. State of Odisha, 2012 (Suppl.II) OLR 506 and Bhramarabar Tarei vrs. Collector, Puri, WP(C) No.7622 of 2008 disposed of by this Court vide judgment dated 23.03.2021.
6. Mr. Debakanta Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate supports the impugned order on the grounds stated therein.
7. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that, the suo motu revisional power was exercised under Section 7-A(3) of the OGLS Act to initiate the cancellation proceeding in the year 1998.
8. Section 7-A(3) of the OGLS Act has been amended in the year 2013. Prior to amendment it was as follows:
<7-A. Revision -
xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx (3) The Collector may, of his own motion or otherwise, call for and examine the records of any proceeding in which any authority, subordinate to it has passed an order under this Act for the purpose of satisfying himself that any such order was not passed under a Page 4 of 6 mistake of fact or owing to a fraud or misrepresentation or on account of any material irregularity of procedure and may pass such order thereon as he thinks fit.
Provided that no order shall be passed under this subsection unless the person affected by the proposed order has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter:
Provided further that no proceeding under this sub- section shall be initiated after the expiry of fourteen years from the date of the order.= After amendment w.e.f, 13th November 2013 said provision stands as follows:
<(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law, the Collector may, on his own motion or otherwise, call for and examine the records of any proceeding, in which any authority subordinate to him has passed an order under this Act, for the purpose of satisfying himself that any such order was not passed under a mistake of facts or owing to a fraud or misrepresentation or on account of any material irregularity of procedure and may pass such order thereon as he thinks fit:
Provided that no order shall be passed under this subsection unless the person affected by the proposed order has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter.=
9. Admittedly in the present case, the suo motu revision was initiated in 1998 after 24 years of grant of lease on 30.08.1974. The impugned order is silent regarding the reasons with material particulars for initiating the suo motu proceeding after 24 years.
10. In the case of Nirmal Kumar Pattnaik v. State of Orissa 2012 (Supp.-II) OLR 450 and Smt. Elley Pattnaik v. State of Orissa 2012 (Supp.-II) OLR 506, where the suo motu revision under Section 7-A(3) of the Act were initiated beyond 14 years, this Court by applying the second proviso to sub- Section (3) of Section 7-A have observed that no such Page 5 of 6 proceeding can be initiated after 14 years and any such proceeding initiated beyond 14 years is unsustainable being without jurisdiction.
11. It is thus clear that, suo motu revision proceeding initiated by the Opposite Party No.3 in 1998 is barred by law of limitation and any such order, de hors the law of limitation, is not sustainable.
12. The doubts raised by Opposite Party No.3 in the impugned order are not seen substantiated with materials. So on such baseless assertions, the right enjoyed by the Petitioner for a considerable period of more than 24 years cannot be taken away in the guise of suo motu revisional power.
13. In view of the discussions made above, the impugned order dated 30.06.1998 under Annexure-3 series is quashed and the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.
(DR. B.R. SARANGI) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (M.S. RAMAN) JUDGE Aswini Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ASWINI KUMAR SETHY Designation: PA(SECRETARY-IN-CHARGE) Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 19-Jan-2024 16:48:45 Page 6 of 6