Orissa High Court
Anupama Mohanty vs State Of Orissa And Others on 30 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P (C) No. 2589 of 2017
Anupama Mohanty ..... Petitioner
Mr. P.K. Mohanty, Sr. Adv. along with
Mr. P.K. Pasayat, Adv.
Vs.
State of Orissa and others ..... Opposite Parties
Mr. A.K. Mishra, AGA
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
ORDER
30.08.2023
Order No. This matter is taken up by hybrid mode.
12.
2. Heard Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel appearing
along with Mr. P.K. Pasayat, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for
the State-opposite parties.
3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the
order dated 30.06.1998 passed by the opposite party no.3-A.D.M.,
Khurda, Bhubaneswar in Lease Revision Case No. 652 of 1998
under Annexure-10.
4. Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel appearing along
with Mr. P.K. Pasayat, learned counsel for the petitioner contended
that the land in question which has been owned by the petitioner was
initially leased out in W.L. Lease Case No.1226/1974 in favour of
one Bulla Dehuri, S/o- late Guria Dehuri of village-Andharua, P.S.-
Chandaka in the district of Puri, who, being a scheduled caste,
obtained permission under Section 22 (i) (b) and 22 (i) (b) (4) of the
O.L.R. Act, 1960 for transfer of the land to the petitioner in Revenue
Misc. Case No. 197 of 1981. The same was also permitted by the
Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar in Revenue Misc. Case No. 13 of 1982.
Therefore, the land appertaining to Khata No.621/106, Plot No.2033
measuring area Ac.0.730 of village/Mouza- Andharua was settled in
favour of the lessee Bulla Dehuri. After permission for sale of the
land, as aforesaid, the lessee Bulla Dehuri sold the properties to the
petitioner by Registered Sale Deed No.986 dated 27.01.1982. After
purchasing the land, the petitioner was in possession of the same and
also got it mutated in her name under sthitiban status and obtained
the ROR. The land was also recorded separately in the name of the
petitioner in Khata No.621/212 in Plot No.2033/3349 by allowing
the Mutation Case No.452 of 1982 bifurcating the sabik plot from
Khata No.621/106. The petitioner also obtained certified copy of the
computerized ROR in the year 2006, wherein her name stands
recorded in Mouza-Andharua, Thana-Chandaka appertaining to
Khata No.621/212, Plot No.2033/3349 measuring Ac.0.400 decimals
as per the order in the mutation case mentioned in the remark column
of the said ROR. The petitioner has been possessing the land and
utilizing the same for her domestic purpose since the time of her
purchase and has also been paying regularly the land revenue.
Further, in the settlement operation, at different stages, such as, in
Kistiwari survey, the name of the petitioner is found to have been
recorded and she is in possession over the land purchased by her. In
course of Khanapuri stage of the settlement operation, Yadadast
record made by the order of the Asst. Settlement Officer in the name
of the petitioner. Accordingly, the Not Final ROR has been prepared
in the name of the petitioner. On the basis of the Yadadast record and
the order passed by the Asst. Settlement Officer at Rent stage, the
'Parcha', which is nothing but 'not final ROR', was issued in the
name of the petitioner, which being assigned with Hal Khata
No.2182, Hal Plot No.4580 appertaining to Sabik Plot
No.2033/3349, as would be evident from the copy of the said
Parcha/not final ROR. But, despite the land being recorded in the
name of the petitioner in the settlement operation with culmination
of final ROR/Parcha, the Asst. Settlement Officer, committed error
in a suo motu case and without notice to the affected persons like the
petitioner, has passed stereo type order to record the land in
Government Khata by usurpation of power of the OGLS authorities.
At this point of time, the petitioner traced out with regard to W.L.
Case No.1226 of 1974 pertaining to lease plot no.2033/3349, from
which the petitioner succeeded in purchasing a portion thereof, as the
petitioner had no knowledge that there has been any notice with
regard to the said matter under OGLS Act and, as such, no
endorsement has been given in any government record that the
petitioner is aware of such position. It is contended that the order
dated 30.06.1998 clearly indicates that sanction of lease has been
suffered from various material irregularity, as mentioned in clause-
(1) to (6) and, thereby, the A.D.M., Khurda has cancelled the lease.
Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the
present writ petition.
5. Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned Addl. Government Advocate
appearing for the State-opposite parties contended that if the
petitioner has purchased the land with due permission, then the
findings of the Addl. District Magistrate is absolutely erroneous.
Therefore, the defects pointed out in the order itself cannot be
sustained in the eye of law. As such, the writ petition may be
disposed of remanding the matter back to the A.D.M. to reconsider
the case afresh as per the ratio decided by this Court in the case of
Mamata Behera v. State of Odisha, 2021 (I) OLR 217.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going
through the records, but, however, without expressing opinion on the
merits of the case, this Court finds that since the petitioner has
purchased the land with due permission, but defect was pointed out
by the A.D.M. in the order dated 30.06.1998 and consequentially
cancelled the lease was cancelled, without any application of mind,
the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law and is liable to be
quashed. Accordingly, the order dated 30.06.1998 passed by the
A.D.M., Khurda is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to
the very same authority to reconsider the same afresh, in terms of the
judgment of this Court rendered in case of Mamata Behera (supra),
and pass appropriate order in accordance with law by affording
opportunity of hearing to all the parties.
7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
Ashok (DR. B.R. SARANGI)
JUDGE
(M.S. RAMAN)
JUDGE
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Date: 30-Aug-2023 18:17:11
