Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that the petitioner had filed an application in prescribed format under the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act, 1962, (hereinafter to be referred in short as "OGLS Act, 1962") before the competent authority on 15.04.1976 for grant of lease of a piece of land measuring Ac.4.000 dec. out of plot no.910/1126 under khata no.293 in Mouza-Nayakote for agriculture purpose. In pursuance thereof, W.L. Case No.98 of 1976 was instituted and a notice was published by the Tahasildar, Khurda inviting objections from the general public. A notice was also sent to the concerned Gram Panchayat, i.e., Olasingha G.P., where the land is situated, which was received by the then Sarapanch, Olasingha G.P. Thereafter, the Tahasildar, Khurda also directed the Revenue Inspector to cause an enquiry regarding the statements made by the petitioner in his application form. In response thereto, the R.I. enquired into the matter, as per provisions of // 3 // the OGLS Act, 1962 and the OGLS Rules, 1974 about the eligibility of the petitioner regarding his landed property, income, etc., and submitted his report before the Tahasildar for settlement of the land. After due enquiry and after receipt of the report from the Panchayat, following due procedure as laid down in the statute, the Tahasildar leased out one acre of land in favour of the petitioner, vide order dated 26.08.1978.

2.1 As per the order of the Tahasildar, the R.I. went to the spot and after necessary measurement, handed over possession of the land to the petitioner. The Tahasildar also issued Form 'K' in favour of the petitioner. Since then the petitioner is in peaceful possession of the land till date.

2.2 While the matter stood thus, on the report of opposite party no.3-Sub-Collector, Khurdha, opposite party no.2-Collector, Khurda initiated a proceeding under Section 7-A(3) of OGLS (Amendment) Act, 2013 by instituting OGLS Revision No.2 of 2014 and issued a show-cause notice dated 12.08.2014 to the // 4 // petitioner alleging that the land has been settled in his favour under a mistake of fact and on account of material irregularity of procedure. 2.3 After receiving the show-cause notice, the petitioner filed his show-cause reply dated 09.09.2014 (Annexure-8) in OGLS Revision No.2 of 2014 annexing all the documents, which he had received under the Right to Information Act, 2005, denying and disputing all the allegations. It was specifically submitted by the petitioner that before granting lease in his favour, the provisions of the OGLS Act, 1962 and the OGLS Rules, 1974 had been properly followed and there was no irregularity in granting lease in his favour. It was further stated that the findings given by the Sub- Collector in his enquiry report, which formed the basis for initiation of the revision proceeding, have no basis at all and perverse, for which dismissal of the revision case was prayed.

3. Mr. S. Senapati, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that since the land in question was settled in favour of the petitioner in the year 1978, the OGLS (Amendment) Act, 2013 is not applicable to the case of the petitioner. Thus, initiation of the revision proceeding under Section 7- A(3) of the OGLS Act, 1962 as per said amendment after 36 years of settlement of the land is not maintainable in the eye of law. It is contended that if the statute prescribes a mode to do in a particular manner, without assigning any reason and without following due procedure, the action taken by opposite party no.2-Collector, Khurda cancelling the lease // 6 // granted in favour of the petitioner cannot be sustained in the eye of law, as he had got the lease settled in his favour by following due procedure. It is further contended that though the petitioner had taken a specific plea in his application and also advanced argument at the time of hearing, the same was not taken into consideration nor any finding has been recorded to that effect by the Collector, Khrdha, while passing the impugned order dated 02.01.2015 in OGLS Revision No.2 of 2014. Thereby, the said order cannot be sustained in the eye of law, being without jurisdiction, and is liable to be quashed. The action of the Collector, Khurdha is hit by limitation under Section 7A(3) of the OGLS Act, 1962. To substantiate his contentions, he has relied upon Purna Ch. Pradhan v. State of Orissa & Ors, 2006(I) OLR 184; Nirmal Kumar Pattnaik v. State of Orissa & Ors., 2012(Supp.-II) OLR 450 and Bata Krushna Nayak v. State of Orissa & three Ors.,2010 (I) OLR 723.

When a statute confers any power on a statutory authority, howsoever wide the discretion may be, it should be exercised with circumspection; such power must not smack arbitrariness, mechanical application of mind and backed by whims and caprice. In such cases, the power so exercised cannot be said to withstand the test of judicial scrutiny.

In the present case, as is apparent from the record, the Collector, Khurdha initiated proceeding on 08.08.2014 which is around 36 years after from the date of order of the Tashasildar, i.e., 26.08.1978, is flagrant violation of the provisions ignoring purport of the second proviso to Section 7A(3) of the OGLS Act, as // 14 // it stood at the relevant point of time. In such view of the matter, the exercise of power of revision is beyond the period stipulated under the second proviso to Section 7A(3) of the OGLS Act.