Binodini Mohanty And Others vs State Of Odisha And Others

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

Petitioner, in this Writ Petition, seeks to assail the order dated 23rd July, 1987 (Annexure-4) passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar in Lease Revision Case No.213 of 1986 initiated under Section 7-A (3) of the Odisha Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) cancelling the lease granted by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar in favour of the Vendor of the Petitioner, namely, Balamani Dei in W.L. Case No.950 of 1974.

Mr. Nanda, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Vendor of the Petitioner, namely, Balamani Dei was a landless person. She applied for a piece of government land to earn her livelihood. Accordingly, WL Case No.950 of 1974 was initiated on the file of Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar and following due procedure of law, lease was granted in favour of said Balamani Dei in respect of Plot No.1958 under Khata No.805 to an extent of Ac.1.000 decimal in mouza Andharua under Bhubaneswar Tahasil in the district of Khordha (for brevity ‘the leasehold property’).

Thereafter, the record of right was also issued in favour of said Balamani Dei under Annexure-1. When the lessee, namely, Balamani Dei was in peaceful possession over the leasehold property exercising her right, title and interest thereon, she alienated Ac.0.500 decimal of land out of the leasehold property in favour of the Petitioner for her legal necessity by virtue of Registered Sale Deed dated 24th February, 1981. On purchase, the Petitioner got the land mutated in her name and mutation ROR in respect of Plot No.1958/3171 in Khata No.621/63 of mouza Andharua under Bhubaneswar tahasil (for brevity ‘the case land’) was prepared in the name of the Petitioner. Since then, the Petitioner is in possession over the case land exercising her right and tile thereon.

In the year 2024, Petitioner went to the office of the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar to make an application for conversion of the case land to ‘Gharabari’ by paying the arrear rent, but the staff of the office of the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar refused to accept the same on the ground that the lease in favour of the Vendor of the Petitioner had already been cancelled and the leasehold property has been restored to government khata. Thus, the Petitioner applied for the relevant case records and filed this Writ Petition to set aside the impugned order under Annexure-4.

Mr. Nanda, learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that no notice whatsoever was served on the Petitioner in the Lease Revision case No. 213 of 1986, although the case land which formed part of the leasehold property, had already been recorded in her name by then. Thus, the Petitioner could not know about the cancellation of the lease and contest the Revision Case No.213 of 1986. Without providing any reasonable opportunity of hearing, a valuable civil right of the Petitioner has been taken away. Hence, the impugned order is bad and illegal in the eye of law and is liable to be set aside.

Mr. Biswal, learned ASC referring to the counter affidavit, submits that the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar, while granting lease in favour of the Vendor of the Petitioner, namely, Balamani Dei, did not follow due procedure of law. There was also material irregularity in settling the leasehold property in favour of the lessee. The leasehold property has already been recorded in government khata under ‘Abadayogya Anabadi’ status in jungle kissam. Further, the Writ Petition has been filed thirty-nine years after the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate, which is impugned herein. Thus, the Writ Petition suffers from delay and latches. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, this Court finds that the Petitioner purchased the case land from said Balamani Dei, the lessee by virtue of Registered Sale Deed dated 24th February, 1981 and was delivered with possession. It also appears that the mutation ROR was also prepared in the name of the Petitioner in respect of the case land. But no document has been filed by the Opposite Parties to show that Petitioner was served with any notice and given opportunity of hearing in Revision Case No.213 of 1986 before Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar. Since by the date the Revision Case under Section 7-A(3) of the Act was initiated, the case land which is part of the leasehold property, had already been recorded in the name of the Petitioner, she should have been given an opportunity of hearing in Revision Case No.213 of 1986. Thus, non-application of mind by the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar while adjudicating Revision Case No.213 of 1986 is apparent.

The Petitioner has also explained the delay in filing the Writ Petition stating that she went to the office of the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar in the year 2024 for the purpose of filing an application to covert the case land to ‘Gharabari’ and the staff of the office of the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar intimated her that the lease granted in favour of her Vendor has already been cancelled and the leasehold property has been recorded in the name of the government. Thus, since the Petitioner was not served with any notice in the Revision Case No.213 of 1986, she had no occasion to know about the order passed in the said revision case or cancellation of the lease. As such, the impugned order dated 23rd July, 1987 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar in Revision Case No.213 of 1986 is bad in law being violative of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the same is set aside.

The matter is remitted to the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar to adjudicate the Lease Revision Case No.213 of 1986 afresh giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned including the Petitioner. The Petitioner is at liberty to file her objection and relevant document(s) in support of her case to defend the Revision Case No.213 of 1986.

The Writ Petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

Interim order dated 17th July, 2025 passed in IA No.5997 of 2025 stands vacated.