Sri Kishore Chandra Pattnaik ... vs The State Of Orissa And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 1899 Ori

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                               O.J.C. No.15984 of 1997

            Sri Kishore Chandra Pattnaik (since    ....           Petitioners
            dead) through legal heirs Saraswati
            Pattnaik and others
                                  Mr. Ramakant Mohanty, Senior Advocate
                                        -versus-
            The State of Orissa and others         .... Opposite Parties
                                                 Mr. Subir Palit, Advocate
                       CORAM:
                       THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                       JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
                                       ORDER

Order No. 21.03.2022

30. 1. One of the issues that has been highlighted by Mr. Ramakant Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioners is the non-implementation of the order dated 2nd November 1992 passed by this Court in OJC No.2063 and 2057 of 1992. According to him, since that order has attained finality and it declared the Petitioner-Lessee (now represented by the legal representatives) to be a deemed tenant under Section 8 (i) of the Orissa Estate Abolition Act and it was further held that the proceeding initiated under Section 5 (i) of the OEA Act should be taken to have been dropped, effect had to be given by recognizing the lease hold rights of the Petitioner not only in respect of 7 acres of land of the land in question but the entire 53.95 acres.

2. Mr. Subir Palit, learned counsel appearing for the G.A. Department, Government of Odisha, however, draws attention to

paragraph 31 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Harapriya Bisoi AIR 2009 SC 2991 which reads as under:

"31. In course of hearing of the appeals, a query was made as to what is the effect of the order of the High Court in OJC 2063 of 1992 i.e. whether it covers the area of 7 acres or the whole area of 53.95 acres of land. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that in view of the finding that the order of the Collector was indefensible, obviously the right, title and interest of the respondent extended to the whole area. This stand is clearly unsustainable. The Collector's order only referred to certain enquires made to confirm possession of only 7 acres of land. The High Court apparently has not considered this aspect. The High Court has also not considered the effect of alleged fraud and the fact that the relevant department was not a party in the proceedings before the High Court in OJC 2063 of 1992."

3. In fact on carefully perusing the aforementioned decision of the Supreme Court, it is plain that the Supreme Court not only disagreed with the order dated 2nd November 1992 of this Court, but also the subsequent order dated 27th October 2005 in W.P.(C) No.8282 of 2004 and the order dated 10th January 2007 in RVWPET No.13 of 2006 which were challenged before it in the aforementioned case. The Supreme Court characterized the entire proceedings as a 'massive' 'apparent fraud'. After discussing in detail the background facts and the provisions of the relevant statutes, the Supreme Court in paragraph 46 issued the following directions:

"46. In the background of the massiveness of apparent fraud involved, effective and participative role of officials of the State cannot be lost sight of.

Without their active and effective participation manipulation of records, tampering with documents could not have been possible. The State would do well to pursue the matter with seriousness to unravel the truth and punish the erring officials and take all permissible actions (including criminal action) against every one involved."

4. It must be mentioned here that when the petition was called out today, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner in W.P.(C) Nos.8004 and 8282 of 2004 (which were required to be reheard by this Court pursuant to the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Harapriya Bisoi (supra) stated that he had no instructions to continue pressing those petitions. Accordingly, both those petitions have been dismissed as not pressed. Consequently, the connected CONTC No.1167 of 2006 has also been closed.

5. Nevertheless, in view of the clear directions issued by the Supreme Court of India in State of Orissa v. Harapriya Bisoi (supra), it is incumbent on the State Government to explain to this Court what action it has taken in compliance with the directions issued by the Supreme Court in paragraph 46 of the decision as extracted hereinbefore.

6. Mr. Palit on instructions states that an FIR was registered and criminal investigation was taken up. However, considering that the judgment of the Supreme Court is dated 20th April 2009 which is almost 13 years earlier, the Court expects that there should have been much more progress in the matter beyond the registration of an FIR. The Supreme Court's direction is very

clear that the State should pursue the matter "with seriousness to unravel the truth and punish the erring officials and take all permissible actions (including criminal action) against everyone involved." If the State has not still taken the above steps, it would appear to be in willful disobedience of the directions issued by the Supreme Court.

7. In that view of the matter, the Secretary, G.A. Department, Government of Odisha is directed to himself file an affidavit in this Court explaining what steps have been taken by the G.A. Department in compliance with the mandatory directions issued by the Supreme Court of India in State of Orissa v. Harapriya Bisoi (supra). The said affidavit should be filed in this Court not later than 23rd May, 2022.

8. List on 22nd June, 2022.

(Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice

(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge S.K. Guin