Orissa High Court
Bidulata Mohapatra vs State Of Odisha And Others on 22 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P (C) No. 23312 of 2023
Bidulata Mohapatra ..... Petitioner
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
petitioner and Mr. L. Samantray, learned Addl. Government
Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties.
3. The petitioner has 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 petitioner
contended that pursuant to lease granted in favour of the petitioner
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, she was 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 petitioner has been cancelled. Therefore,
the petitioner has 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
petitioner knows that the yadast prepared by the revenue authority
has not been recorded in her favour in the year 2005, but the
petitioner has approached this Court in the year 2023, i.e., after
long lapse of more than 18 years. Thereby, the claim made by the
petitioner 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 petitioner, 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 petitioner, has been cancelled. But the
petitioner has 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 petitioner has 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 petitioner 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 petitioner was not the petitioner 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
petitioner to approach this Court immediately. But, without doing
so, the petitioner awaited for quite a long time. Even when the
name of the petitioner was not recorded by the settlement
authority in the yadast, the petitioner did not approach this Court.
It is stated that the petitioner has 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
petitioner is a fence sitter and was waiting if something can be
done otherwise to her 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 petitioner has
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 her.
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
