Sadhu Charan Samantaray vs State Of Odisha & Others

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

Heard Mr. J. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-Opposite Parties.

Challenge has been made to the order dated 24.09.2002 passed by Opposite Party No.3- the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar in Misc. Case No.573/2000 arising out of W.L. Case No.676/1973 under Annexure-3.

Mr. J. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide W.L. Case No. 676/1973, learned Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar settled the case land appertaining to Plot No.58/400/515 in Khata No.95/76 in Mouza-Krushna Nagar measuring an area of Ac.1.00 in favour of one Rabindra Behera as per his prayer. Subsequently, Sri Behera sold the case land to the present petitioner on 23.02.2005 through registered sale deed vide Annexure-2 series after obtaining permission from the competent authority vide Revenue Misc. Case No.328/96 vide Annexure-2 series, as he is a scheduled caste person and thereafter the petitioner remained in peaceful possession of the purchased land and subsequently the case land.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the petitioner came to know that on 24.09.2002, learned Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar has cancelled the original lease granted in favor the vendor of the petitioner under Section 3-B of the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 (hereinafter called as the Act) long after 29 years of granting the original lease on the ground that the land is not being utilized for the purpose it was granted and lying vacant. According to him, no opportunity of hearing was given to him before cancelling the lease granted in favour of his vendor even if he has purchased the land in 2005 and in possession of the same. Thus, the impugned order was passed mechanically by cancelling the lease in gross violation of the principles of natural justice as the petitioner was not been given any notice while cancelling the lease. Although this Court has passed a general order in OJC No.9449 of 1993 directing the land under Bhubaneswar Tahasil to be enquired by senior official to find out whether the lease has been granted properly or not and the opposite party, taking advantage of that order and without observing the principles of natural justice, cancelled the lease, which is illegal and arbitrary for which he prays to quash the impugned order dated 24.09.2002 and direct the opposite party no.3 to restore the lease granted vide W.L. No.676/1973.

Mr. D.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the opposite party no.3, after going through the materials, found that the case land is not used for agricultural purpose although it was leased out for homestead purpose. Moreover, the opposite party is of the opinion that the original lease holder is not in possession of the case land and since the terms and conditions of the lease has been violated, the opposite party has rightly passed the order of resumption of the land under Section 3-B of the Act.

Considering the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for both parties, we are of the view that since the petitioner has purchased the land from Sri Rabindra Behera in whose favour the lease was granted vide W.L. Case No. 676/1973, the petitioner was required to be heard before passing of the impugned order. It also appears that the impugned order of resumption has been passed mechanically without application of mind. Thus, the impugned order dated 24.09.2002 passed by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar cancelling the lease vide W.L. Case No. 676/1973 is liable to be quashed and the Court do so. We further direct for de novo hearing of the resumption proceeding in W.L Case No. 676/1973 by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar, opposite party no.3 and take decision after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order.

To cut short the delay, we direct the petitioner to appear before the opposite party no.3 in W.L. Case No.676/1973, whereupon the opposite party shall fix date(s) of hearing.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

Requisites for communication of this order to opposite party no.3 shall be filed within a week.

Issue urgent certified copy on proper application.

………………………….