Orissa High Court
Sanatan Rout And Others vs State Of Odisha And Others on 22 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P (C) No. 23315 of 2023
Sanatan Rout and others ..... Petitioners
Mr. S.K. Samantray, Adv.
Vs.
State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Mr. L. Samantray, AGA
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
ORDER
22.08.2023
Order No. This matter is taken up by hybrid mode.
02.
2. Heard Mr. S.K. Samantray, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Mr. L. Samantray, learned Addl. Government
Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties.
3. The petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking to quash
the order dated 28.07.1998 passed by the Addl. District
Magistrate, Bhubaneswar in Suo Motu Lease Revision Case
No.841 of 1998 under Annexure-5, and further seeks direction to
the opposite parties to correct the ROR in her favour as per
Registered Sale Deed under Annexure-2 corresponding to Sabik
and Hal ROR under Annexure-1 and 4 respectively.
4. Mr. S.K. Samantray, learned counsel for the petitioners
contended that pursuant to lease granted in favour of the
petitioners vide lease order dated 11.10.1974 by the Tahasildar,
Bhubaneswar in W.L. Case No. 1645 of 1974 for an area
measuring Ac.1.000 in plot no.583 under Khata No.420 in respect
of village-Patharagadia, P.S. Chandaka, they were in possession of
the same. But, all on a sudden, a proceeding was initiated under
Section 7-A(3) of the Orissa Govt. Land Settlement Act, 1962 in
Lease Revision Case No.841 of 1998 and, as such, the lease which
was granted in favour of the petitioners has been cancelled.
Therefore, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the
present writ petition.
5. Mr. L. Samantray, learned Addl. Government Advocate
appearing for the State-opposite parties contended that the writ
petition suffers from gross delay and laches and, thereby, the same
should be dismissed. It is further contended that though the
petitioners knows that the Yadast prepared by the revenue
authority has not been recorded in their favour in the year 2005,
but the petitioners have approached this Court in the year 2023,
i.e., after long lapse of more than 18 years. Thereby, the claim
made by the petitioners in the present writ petition cannot be
sustained in the eye of law. Consequentially, dismissal of the writ
petition is sought for.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going
through the records, this Court finds that lease was granted in
favour of the petitioners, vide lease order dated 11.10.1974, by the
Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar in W.L. Case No. 1645 of 1974 for an
area measuring Ac.1.000 in plot no.583 under Khata No.420 in
respect of village-Patharagadia, P.S. Chandaka. But the same
having not been done in accordance with law, a suo motu revisin
case was initiated by the Addl. District Magistrate bearing Lease
Revision Case No.841 of 1998 under Section 7-A(3) of the Orissa
Govt. Land Settlement Act, 1962, by which the lease which, was
granted in favour of the petitioners, has been cancelled. But the
petitioners have not approached the appropriate forum challenging
the order passed by the Addl. District Magistrate on 28.07.1998.
As it appears from the order dated 28.07.1998, the certified copy
of the order vide application no.86/2003 was issued on
29.04.2003. But the petitioners have not assailed the said
revisional order within the time specified. In course of hearing,
when query was made by this Court, Mr. S.K. Samantray, learned
counsel for the petitioners contended that similarly situated
persons have applied for certified copy of the revisional order,
which was granted to them on 29.04.2003. It is also contended that
they have also approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.8846
of 2003, which was disposed of vide order dated 20.11.2006,
remanding the matter to the authority taking into consideration the
judgment of this Court in the case of Purna Chandra Pradhan v.
State of Orissa, 2006 (I) OLR 184, wherein this Court held that
limitation prescribed under second proviso to Section 7-A of the
O.G.L.S. Act cannot be extended and no suo motu revision can be
initiated after expiry of 14 years from the date of grant of the
lease. By holding so, this Court quashed the order dated
28.07.1998 passed by the Addl. District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar
in Leave Revision Case No.841 of 1998 under Annexure-5 to the
said writ petition. But, as it reveals, the present petitioners were
not the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.8846 of 2003. Therefore, if
some of the co-lessees, whose lease was cancelled, had
approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.8846 of 2003 and by
order dated 20.11.2006, the revisional order was set aside, it was
incumbent upon the petitioners to approach this Court
immediately. But, without doing so, the petitioners awaited for
quite a long time. Even when the name of the petitioners were not
recorded by the settlement authority in the Yadast, the petitioners
did not approach this Court. It is stated that the petitioners have
received the certified copy of the revisional order dated
28.07.1998 passed in Lease Revision Case No.841 of 1998 in the
year 2005. Thereby, it seems that the petitioners are fence sitters
and were waiting if something can be done otherwise to their
benefit. But ultimately having failed in the same, now after long
lapse of more than 18 years of receiving of certified copy of the
revisional order, the petitioners have approached this Court by
filing the present writ petition in the year 2023 contending that
similar benefit has already been extended to the co-lessees and the
same should be extended to them.
7. In the above view of the matter, since the writ petition
suffers from delay and laches, this Court is not inclined to
entertain it and the same is accordingly dismissed.
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: 22-Aug-2023 17:27:52
