Yudhistria Panda And Others vs State Of Odisha And Others

Mr. Mishra, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioners and submits, his clients are descendents of transferee from first transferee of original allottee. The first transfer was pursuant to permission, duly obtained. By impugned order dated 21st September, 1987, lease granted to original allottee stood cancelled. This was without notice to his clients.

Mr. Rout, learned advocate, learned Additional Standing Counsel appears on behalf of State and points out from Annexure 3 in the petition that impugned order already stood set aside by this Court on order dated 25th January, 1995 in OJC No.8573 of 1994 (Sri Gouranga Panda v. State of Orissa and others).

Mr. Mishra replies that is how order dated 17th April, 1997 in Revision Case nos. 756 and 714, both of 1987 came to be passed. He demonstrates from said order that there was permission to transfer. His clients are 2nd purchasers. The Additional District Magistrate said in the order that he was inclined to believe, the sanction of lease in favour of opposite party no.1, in both the cases, was regular and therefore confirmed. Said opposite parties of the cases were original lessee (Jogendra Bhoi). He submits, his clients are not being given patta. Hence, separate challenge to order dated 21st September, 1987. There be declaration that his clients are covered and entitled to patta.

It is clear from aforesaid that there was setting aside and quashing of order dated 21st September, 1987, by earlier coordinate Bench. It covers subsequent transferees being petitioners, in respect of a part of subject matter of the revision cases, dealt with on remand by the Additional District Magistrate on order dated 17th April, 1997, confirming the allotments. In the circumstances, we have no hesitation to hold that petitioners claiming under their transferor are entitled to get patta.

With above declaration, the writ petition is disposed of.

……………………………….