Orissa High Court
State Of Orissa vs Panchanan Mallick on 20 May, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RVWPET Nos.138 and 139 of 2011
In RVWPET No.138 of 2011
State of Orissa. .... Petitioner
Mr. Anupam Rath, ASC
-versus-
Panchanan Mallick .... Opp. Party
Mr. Gautam Mishra, Sr. Adv.
In RVWPET No.139 of 2011
State of Orissa. .... Petitioner
Mr. Anupam Rath, ASC
-versus-
Debendranath Parija .... Opp. Party
Mr. Gautam Mishra, Sr. Adv.
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
MR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
ORDER
Order No. 20.05.2022
05. 1. Both the matters are taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. RVWPET No.138 of 2011 has been filed at the instance of
the State seeking review of the order dated 14.08.2006 passed
by this Court in W.P.(C) No.1332 of 2006 quashing the order
dated 11.08.2005 passed by the Collector, Jagatsinghpur in
O.G.L.S. Revision No.35 of 2004. RVWPET No.139 of 2006
has also been filed at the instance of the State seeking review of
the order dated 10.01.2007 passed by this Court in W.P.(C)
No.1333 of 2006 quashing the order dated 11.08.2005 passed
by the Collector, Jagatsinghpur in O.G.L.S. Revision No.30 of
2004.
// 2 //
3. Facts of the case in brief are that the opposite party in
RVWPET No.138 of 2011 (hereinafter referred to as "the
opposite party no.1 for brevity) served as a Jawan in the Indian
Army from 1961 to 1977 and the opposite party in RVWPET
No.139 of 2011 (hereinafter referred to as "the opposite party
no.2" for brevity) served as a Jawan in the Indian Army from
1958 to 1986. They were granted some lands on lease basis by
the Government of Orissa recognizing their service in the
Indian Army. The opposite party No.1 was granted land to an
extent of Ac.5.00 vide order dated 09.09.1974 passed by the
Tahasildar, Kujanga in Lease Case No.26/12 of 1970-71. The
opposite party No.2 was also granted five acres of land vide
order dated 24.07.1980 passed by the Tahasildar, Kujanga in
Lease Case No.31/80. Subsequently, several Writ petitions
were filed before this Court raising grievance about the illegal
execution of the lease deeds and prayed for their cancellation.
They also sought to dispossess the possession holders of the
leased land.
4. One of such writ petitions was OJC No.11136 of 1999. As it
appears, this Court vide order dated 23.03.2004 while taking
cognizance of OJC No.11136 of 1999 directed the authorities
to take action in accordance with law for cancellation of the
lease granted to some individuals. In compliance thereof, it
appears that some actions were stated to have been taken, but
the petitioners thereof were not satisfied. Thus, the order dated
15.05.2008 was passed directing the authorities to furnish
complete particulars pertaining to the number of lease deeds
had been cancelled. In their reply, the authorities had stated that
// 3 //
46 lease deeds had been cancelled, including the lease deeds of
the opposite party Nos.1 and 2. Against such orders of
cancellation dated 11.08.2005 passed by the Collector,
Jagatsinghpur in O.G.L.S. Revision No.35 of 2004 and in
O.G.L.S. Revision No.30 of 2004 respectively, the opposite
party nos.1and 2 approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)
No.1332 and 1333 of 2006.
5. Learned Counsel for the Review Petitioners argue that the
Lease Deed cannot be cancelled after the expiry of 14 years as
prescribed under Section 7A of the Orissa Government Land
Settlement Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as "the O.G.L.S.
Act' for brevity) and the order of the court and authority below
had been set aside.
6. The said W.P.(C) No.1332 of 2006 filed by the opposite
party No.1 was allowed on 14.08.2006 quashing the order dated
11.08.2005 passed by the Collector, Jagatsinghpur in O.G.L.S.
Revision No.35 of 2004 and W.P.(C) No.1333 of 2006 was
allowed on 10.01.2007 quashing the order dated 11.08.2005
passed by the Collector, Jagatsinghpur in O.G.L.S. Revision
No.30 of 2004 on various grounds and also following the
judgment and order dated 10.08.2006 passed in W.P.(C)
Nos.10156 and 10158 of 2006. One of the prominent grounds
was that the lease could not have been cancelled after expiry of
the limitation period i.e. 14 years as provided under the
proviso to Section 7A of the O.G.L.S. Act.
7. It has been pointed that a list of lease deeds of 49 cases were
submitted before the Tahasilar for examination and
cancellation. But, only 46 lease deeds were cancelled. There are
// 4 //
many lease deeds which have not been kept out of the pale of
cancellation. Therefore, there is an urgent need of enquire into
the matters and fixing the responsibility on the persons
responsible for executing the lease deed illegally. It was further
submitted that the direction to take possession of the land and
restore it to the Forest Department by 31.05.2009 and submit
the compliance report by the Tahasildar, Tirtol was to be
submitted within the 1st week of June, 2009. It is pertinent to
mention here that the writ petitions filed by the Ex-Army
Personnel have been allowed and the judgments and orders
passed in the writ petitions attained finality and it is neither
permissible nor desirable to re-open the case at this point in
time. In fact, the present Review petitions are akin and covered
by the orders in OJC No. 11136 and EVWPET No. 137 of
2011. Since the present Review Petitions No. 137/2011 is quite
identical to the present batch of cases and it can be treated in
the same way since those cases have attained finality, the
present case need to be meted with same fate.
8. Accordingly, since the W.P.(C) Nos. 1332, 1333, 10156, and
10158 of 2006 were filed challenging the cancellation of lease
deeds in certain suo motu revisions by the Collector,
Jagatsinghpur and which were allowed setting aside the orders
passed in those suo motu revisions.
9. We have considered the rival contention of the parties and
perused the case record. We do not find any infirmity in the
orders impugned in RVWPET Nos.138 and 139 of 2011.
10. Therefore, both the RVWPETs filed by the State are
dismissed.
// 5 //
11. There shall be no orders as to costs.
(Jaswant Singh) ( S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge Judge
May 20th, 2022
Cuttack/BJ
