Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Then after lapse of 23 years, Lease Revision Case No.116 of 1999 was initiated by Opposite Party No.2 in respect of the aforestated land on 6th August, 1999 in exercise of suo motu power under Section 7-A(3) of the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 (OGLS Act). Consequently, a show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner directing him to // 2 // appear on 2nd November, 1999. Opposite Party No.2, upon hearing the parties, by order dated 17th December, 2007 directed to set aside the lease granted in favour of the Petitioner in W.L.L. Case No.5474 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.

4. The Petitioner avers that the order granting lease in his favour in 1976 by the Tahasildar , Puri was granted following due process of law and in the meantime the ROR has been corrected in his favour with Kissam as Sarad-3. Further he being a landless person and in occupation of the case land from the time of his forefathers, recorded as Abada Jogya Anabadi, has been granted with the lease in due process of law and in the meantime the same has also been recorded in his favour. But Opposite Party No.2 exceeding his jurisdiction, cancelled the lease after a long period without considering his status as a landless person.

Provided that no order shall be passed under this sub- section unless the person affected by the proposed order has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter."

// 4 // As it appears, the stipulation of limitation of 14 years has been removed in the amended provision.

8. Admittedly in the present case, the suo motu revision was initiated in 1999 after 23 years from the date of grant of lease which is dated 23rd February, 1976. Opposite Party No.2 in this regard has observed in the impugned order that since the ROR was not corrected till 3rd December, 1985 in pursuance to the direction of the Tahasildar in the W.L. Lease Case No.5474 of 1974, the lease proceeding is supposed to be continuing till 1985 and therefore the initiation of cancellation proceeding cannot be said beyond the period of limitation of 14 years.

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 proceeding can be initiated after 14 years and any such proceeding initiated beyond 14 years is unsustainable being without jurisdiction.

9. In the instant case, as stated earlier, the suo motu proceeding has been initiated after 23 years. What is explained by the ADM (Opposite Party No.2) that the proceeding in lease case No.5474 of 1974 was continued till the correction of ROR on 3rd December 1985 does not appear logical. It is for the reason that correction of ROR is a subsequent proceeding dependent on the order of grant of lease. In case of refusal of // 5 // lease, no such proceeding is required to be undertaken. Therefore, lease proceeding is the substantial proceeding and it attains finality on the date of order, either granting lease or refusing it. When it is admitted that the order was passed granting the lease on 23rd February, 1976, the limitation starts counting from the said date and not by an extended date when the ROR was corrected. Therefore, the reasons assigned by the Opposite Party No.2 in extending the period of limitation up to 3rd December, 1985 does not hold good. The limitation starts counting from 23rd February, 1976, when the order was passed in the lease case. It is thus clear that, suo motu revision proceeding initiated by the Opposite Party No.2 in 1999 is barred by law of limitation and any such order, de hors the law of limitation, is not sustainable.