Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: OGLS Act in Madhusmita Behera vs State Of Odisha on 16 January, 2026Matching Fragments
By the Bench;
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Petitioner in this writ petition seeks to assail the order dated 15th July, 2013 (Annexure-3) passed by the Assistant W.P.(C) No. 8832 OF 2014 Settlement Officer, Rental Colony, Bhubaneswar in Objection Case No.10126/2013.
3. Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that one Ganeswar Sahoo, being a landless person, applied for a piece of Government land to be settled in his favour. Accordingly, W.L. Case No.1057 of 1978 was initiated and vide order dated 30.10.1978, the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar settled Hal Plot No.5928 of Hal khata No.2053 of village-Andharua to an extent of Ac.1.00 decimals (for brevity 'leasehold property') in favour of said Ganeswar Sahoo by way of a lease. A lease deed was also executed in his favour and RoR in respect of the leasehold property was also published in favour of the lessee. When the mater stood thus, the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar initiated a suo motu proceeding under Section 7-A (3) of the Odisha Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 (for brevity 'the OGLS Act') in Revision Case No.10 of 1982 and vide order dated 08.01.1988, cancelled the lease granted in favour of said Ganeswar Sahoo. By then the lessee, namely, Ganeswar Sahoo was dead. Thus, being aggrieved, his widow namely, Arnapurna Sahoo moved this Court in OJC No.13505 of 1999 before this Court. The said writ petition was allowed vide order dated 04.02.2000 by setting aside the order dated 08.01.1988 and remitting the matter back to the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar for fresh disposal of the Revision Case in accordance with law. Accordingly, the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar considered the Revision Case afresh and vide order dated 29.05.2000 upheld W.P.(C) No. 8832 OF 2014 the lease granted in favour of said Ganeswar Sahoo, in WL Case No.10507 of 1978.
3.2. Thus, the Petitioner possesses the case land exercising her right, title and interest thereon. During current settlement operation, preliminary RoR under Section 12 of the Odisha Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 (for brevity, 'the Settlement Act') was prepared in the name of Government. Thus, the Petitioner filed objection. The said objection was registered as Objection Case No.10126/2013 and was heard along with Objection Case No.9577/13/2863. The Petitioner was never served with any notice of hearing of the said case. However, the Assistant Settlement Officer, Rental Colony, Bhubaneswar most illegally sat over the order passed in a lease case under the OGLS Act and impliedly set aside the lease granted in favour of the lessee, Shri Ganeswar Sahoo, which is without jurisdiction. Subsequently, the final RoR under Section 12-B of the Settlement Act in respect of the case land was published in the W.P.(C) No. 8832 OF 2014 name of the Government on 21.11.2013. Thus, the Petitioner could not get any opportunity to file any Appeal under Section 12-A of the Settlement Act. Further, the order passed in the objection case, being without jurisdiction, the Petitioner without filing any revision under Section 15(b) of the Settlement Act has filed this writ petition. It is his submission that the impugned order being without jurisdiction, the writ petition against the said order is maintainable. In support his submission Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the Petitioner relied upon the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others, reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1. He also relied upon the case of Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and others Vs. Commercial Steel Limited, reported in (2022) 16 SCC 447, wherein, it has been held as follows;
6.2. It is admitted case of both the parties that the final RoR under Section 12-B of the Settlement Act has already been published in the name of the Government. Thus, the question arises as to whether the Petitioner should be relegated to work out the remedy under Section 15(b) of the Settlement Act by filing a properly constituted revision before the Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha or not.
6.3. Admittedly, lease of the leasehold property was granted in favour of Shri Ganeswar Sahoo in WL Case No.1057 of 1978 by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar under OGLS Act. The said order was subsequently upheld by the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar vide order dated 29th May, 2000 in Revision Case No.10 of 1982 initiated suo motu under Section W.P.(C) No. 8832 OF 2014 7-A (3) of the OGLS Act. The said order was not challenged and thus attained finality. There is ample provision under the OGLS Act to seek for cancellation/resumption of a lease granted in favour of a lessee. Section 3(B) and Section 7-A (3) of the OGLS Act make elaborate provisions for cancellation/resumption of lease granted under the OGLS Act. There is no provision under the Settlement Act empowering the Authorities created under the said Act to cancel a lease granted under the OGLS Act. The Assistant Settlement Officer, Bhubaneswar appears to have tested the validity of lease granted in favour of Shri Ganeswar Sahoo under the OGLS Act and directed to record the leasehold property including the case land in the name of the Government. After the order dated 29th May, 2000 was passed in Lease Revision Case No.10 of 1982 confirming the lease granted in favour of Shri Ganeswar Sahoo, the Petitioner purchased the case land vide RSD dated 31st December, 2001 and was delivered with possession. Thus, the Petitioner is a person aggrieved.
6.4. By observing that the lease granted in favour of Shri Ganeswar Sahoo was not scrutinized as directed by this Court in OJC No. 9449 of 1993 directed to record the land in favour of the Government ignoring the fact that the lease granted in favour of Shri Ganeswar Sahoo has already been scrutinized by the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar in Revision Case No. 10 of 1982, i.e., prior to the aforesaid direction of this Court. After remand by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 13505 of 1999, the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar vide his order W.P.(C) No. 8832 OF 2014 dated 29.05.2000 held the lease granted in favour of Shri Ganeswar Sahoo to be valid. Thus, the Assistant Settlement Officer, Bhubaneswar-Opposite Party No.2 acted without jurisdiction in directing to record the case land in favour of the State Government. He impliedly sat over the order passed under the OGLS Act and cancelled the lease granted in favour of Shri Ganeswar Sahoo. Thus, the order under Annexure-3 is void ab initio and non est in the eye of law. Thus, any action taken/order passed in pursuance thereof is also equally void and non est in the eye of law. Further in the case of Whirlpool Corporation (supra) it is held as under;