Orissa High Court
Gopal Chandra Agarwalla vs Additional District Magistrate on 11 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.33346 of 2022
Gopal Chandra Agarwalla ..... Petitioner
Mr.S.R. Subudhi, Advocate
Vs.
Additional District Magistrate, ..... Opposite parties
Bhubaneswar & Another
Mr. A.K. Mishra, AGA
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
MR.JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
ORDER
11.08.2023
Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
12.
2. In this petition the Petitioner has prayed for issuance of a
writ of certiorari to quash order dated 29.04.1998 of the
Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar (Opposite Party
No.1) under Annexure-3.
3. The Petitioner claims that on consideration of his
application for settlement of land for agricultural purpose
measuring an area of Ac.1.000 dec. in Plot No.1231/1610
under Khata No.466 in Mouza Jagannath Prasad, Chandaka
Police Station, Bhubaneswar Tahasil deposited Salami in
Waste Land Case No.1843 of 1978 and accordingly, he was
granted lease of land by Opposite Party No.2-Tahasildar,
Bhubaneswar.
4. Then after lapse of 18 years, Lease Revision Case No.387
of 1998 was initiated by Opposite Party No.1-Additional
District Magistrate in respect of the aforestated land in
exercise of suo motu power under Section 7- A(3) of the
Orissa Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 (OGLS Act).
By order dated 29.04.1998, the Additional District Magistrate,
Khordha, Bhubaneswar directed to set aside the lease granted
in favour of Opposite Party No.6 in W.L.L. Case No.1843 of
1978 and further to correct the records of right (ROR)
accordingly. Said order of cancellation of lease is the subject
matter of challenge in the present writ petition.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that despite
clear prohibition under the law to initiate suo motu revision
beyond a period of 14 years, Opposite Party No.1 cancelled
the lease on frivolous grounds. Said counsel relied on the
judgments of this Court in Nirmal Kumar Pattnaik vrs. State
of Odisha, 2012 (Supp.II) OLR 450; Smt. Elley Pattnaik vrs.
State of Odisha, 2012 (Suppl.II) OLR 506 and Bhramarabar
Tarei vrs. Collector, Puri, WP(C) No.7622 of 2008 disposed
of by this Court vide judgment dated 23.03.2021.
6. Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned Additional Government
Advocate supports the impugned order on the grounds stated
therein.
7. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that, the suo motu
revisional power was exercised under Section 7-A(3) of the
OGLS Act to initiate the cancellation proceeding in the year
1998.
8. Section 7-A(3) of the OGLS Act has been amended in the
year 2013. Prior to amendment it was as follows:
"7-A. Revision -
xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx
(3) The Collector may, of his own motion or otherwise,
call for and examine the records of any proceeding in
which any authority, subordinate to it has passed an
order under this Act for the purpose of satisfying
himself that any such order was not passed under a
mistake of fact or owing to a fraud or misrepresentation
or on account of any material irregularity of procedure
and may pass such order thereon as he thinks fit.
Provided that no order shall be passed under this
subsection unless the person affected by the proposed
order has been given a reasonable opportunity of being
heard in the matter:
Provided further that no proceeding under this sub-
section shall be initiated after the expiry of fourteen
years from the date of the order."
After amendment w.e.f, 13th November 2013 said provision
stands as follows:
"(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or
any other law, the Collector may, on his own motion or
otherwise, call for and examine the records of any
proceeding, in which any authority subordinate to him
has passed an order under this Act, for the purpose of
satisfying himself that any such order was not passed
under a mistake of facts or owing to a fraud or
misrepresentation or on account of any material
irregularity of procedure and may pass such order
thereon as he thinks fit:
Provided that no order shall be passed under this
subsection unless the person affected by the proposed
order has been given a reasonable opportunity of being
heard in the matter."
9. Admittedly in the present case, the suo motu revision was
initiated in 1998 after 18 years of grant of lease on 19.06.1980.
The impugned order is silent regarding the reasons with
material particulars for initiating the suo motu proceeding after
18 years.
10. In the case of Nirmal Kumar Pattnaik v. State of Orissa
2012 (Supp.-II) OLR 450 and Smt. Elley Pattnaik v. State of
Orissa 2012 (Supp.-II) OLR 506, where the suo motu revision
under Section 7-A(3) of the Act were initiated beyond 14
years, this Court by applying the second proviso to sub-
Section (3) of Section 7-A have observed that no such
proceeding can be initiated after 14 years and any such
proceeding initiated beyond 14 years is unsustainable being
without jurisdiction.
11. It is thus clear that, suo motu revision proceeding initiated
by the Opposite Party No.1 in 1998 is barred by law of
limitation and any such order, de hors the law of limitation, is
not sustainable.
12. The doubts raised by Opposite Party No.1 in the impugned
order are not seen substantiated with materials. So on such
baseless assertions, the right enjoyed by the Petitioner for a
considerable period of more than 18 years cannot be taken
away in the guise of suo motu revisional power.
13. In view of the discussions made above, the impugned order
dated 29.04.1998 under Annexure-3 is quashed and the writ
petition is allowed. No order as to costs.
(DR. B.R. SARANGI)
JUDGE
(M.S. RAMAN)
JUDGE
Aswini
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ASWINI KUMAR SETHY
Designation: PA(SECRETARY-IN-CHARGE)
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 14-Aug-2023 10:53:06
