Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. Heard Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for opposite party Nos.1 to 3, Mr. Rout, learned AGA for proforma opposite party No.12 and Mr. Rath, learned counsel for opposite party Nos.4 to 11 besides Mr. Bhuyan, learned counsel for opposite party Nos.5(a) to 5(c).

4. Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submits that title of the case land stood vested with the original tenant and thereafter, upon the vendees. It is contended that the interest over the lease hold created in favour of the original tenant having been recognized in terms of Section 8(1) of the OEA Act through an administrative action, the BDA having earlier granted the permission, could not have revoked the same. In other words, Mr. Mohanty would submit that the title which stands in favour of the petitioner and proforma opposite party Nos.4 to 11, in absence of any such decision under Section 5(i) of the OEA Act, cannot and could not have been the basis of revocation of permission dated 24th November, 2015 and hence, the impugned order under Annexure-1 is untenable in law.

5. Opposite party Nos.1 to 3 and 12 filed separate counter affidavits. According to proforma opposite party No.12, the approval by the BDA may only be considered after the petitioner and proforma opposite party Nos.4 to 11 establish clear title over the case land and justified denial of NoC vide Annexure-4. As per the pleading of opposite party Nos.1 to 3, on scrutiny of the application for permission, title is examined in the first place with fulfillment of other conditions and in view of the final order in SLP (C) Nos.18989 and 18990 of 2014 with the observation that M/s. Acrux Realcon Pvt. Ltd. Vrs. Bhubaneswar Development Authority and others the orders shall not create any title, the permission which was granted earlier was cancelled, a decision which is appealable under the ODA Act. Essentially the denial of the permission by the BDA is on the premise that there is a shadow of doubt on title in favour of the original tenant and thereafter, the petitioner and proforma private opposite parties. An additional affidavit is filed by opposite party Nos.1 to 3 while justifying the revocation under Annexure-1 pleading further that the request for approval was clearly misleading vis-à-vis ownership which could constitute fraud thereby attracting the rigor of law under Section 17 ODA Act. In response to the above, the petitioner filed a rejoinder stating that the statutory conferment of title stands recognized in favour of the original tenant as he was accepted as a tenant under the estate as against background that the ex-intermediary, who was the owner leased it out in his favour, inasmuch as, after vesting, the intermediary interest was statutorily abolished with the occupancy right created by virtue of Section 8(1) of the OEA Act.

7. Mr. Rout, learned AGA for the State submits that the issues relating to right, title and interest of the original tenant is subject to the challenge in view of the observation of the Apex Court M/s. Acrux Realcon Pvt. Ltd. Vrs. Bhubaneswar Development Authority and others while disposing of the SLPs. It is also pleaded that though the land was settled in favour of the original tenant in OEA Misc. Case No.94 of 1981 but the order of the Tahasildar-cum-OEA Collector was set aside in OEA Revision Case No.17 of 1992 by order dated 16th February, 1993 of the Member, Board of Revenue and in such view of the matter, any such declaration of tenancy right under Section 8(1) of the OEA Act was without jurisdiction as it also failed to verify the Record of Right which revealed that the land to be of Kissam 'Jhati jungle' not leasable by the ex-intermediary in view of Section 3 of the Orissa Communal Forest and Private Lands (Prohibition of Alienation) Act, 1948, inasmuch as, ex- intermediary had no occupancy and transferable right over the case land relating to Plot No.341, Anabadi Khata No.270 situate under Mouza-Patia, Bhubaneswar and furthermore when, it stood vested with the State Government free from all encumbrances by a notification dated 27th November, 1952. Basically the objection of opposite party Nos.1 to 3 and proforma opposite party No.12 is that the creation of the tenancy interest in favour of the vendor of the petitioner and other opposite parties in respect of the case land, since illegal and action under Section 5(i) of the OEA Act has been initiated to set it naught, the decision to revoke the permission granted earlier by the BDA is justified.

9. Nowhere, title of the petitioner and proforma opposite party Nos.4 to 11 was ever disturbed but it was left open for the State to challenge the same in view of the observation of the Apex Court while disposing the SLPs. According to proforma opposite party No.12, the interest of the State is involved as the creation of tenancy right on the strength of a 'Hat patta' purportedly executed by the ex-intermediary is in serious doubt. As earlier stated, later to the observation by the Apex Court at the time of disposal of the SLPs, the proceeding in OEA Case No.1 of 2017 under Section 5(i) of the OEA Act was initiated. The tenancy right of the vendor of the petitioner now stands questioned on various M/s. Acrux Realcon Pvt. Ltd. Vrs. Bhubaneswar Development Authority and others grounds as it is made to appear from Annexure-B/12 to the additional affidavit dated 27th November, 2017 of proforma opposite party No.12. In fact, the order of the Tahasildar-cum- OEA Collector under Section 8(1) of the OEA Act was challenged before the Board of Revenue under Section 38-B of the OEA Act and the same was set aside with the conclusion that the confirmation of rayati right shall await the outcome of the enquiry under Section 5(i) of the OEA Act and recommendation of the OEA Collector for confirmation of the lease. The decision under Section 5(i) of the OEA Act is still awaited in OEA Case No.1 of 2017. Therefore, the question is, whether, permission under Section 16(1) of the ODA Act so revoked in the meantime may be restored or can be accorded by the BDA pending enquiry under Section 5(i) of the OEA Act. A serious apprehension is expressed by Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for opposite party Nos.1 to 3 in case Annexure-1 is interfered with as the matter under enquiry is subjudice.