Orissa High Court
(Through Hybrid Mode) vs State Of Odisha And Others on 1 February, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.30580 of 2021
(Through hybrid mode)
Sudam Ghadei ..... Petitioner
Miss. Bhaktisudha Sahu, Advocate
Vs.
State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Mr. A.K. Nanda, Advocate(AGA)
CORAM:
JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
ORDER
01.02.2023
Order No. 1. Miss. Sahu, learned advocate appears on behalf of
04.
petitioner. She submits, impugned is order dated 18th July, 1987
made by the Additional District Magistrate in the suo motu
revision case, whereunder original lease was cancelled. She relies
on judgment dated 2nd January, 2023 by the 1st Division Bench
of this Court in, inter alia, WP(C) no.1608 of 2014 (Narottam
Rath v. State of Odisha and another). She submits, thereby
similar suo motu cases were struck down.
2. Mr. Nanda, learned advocate, Additional Government
Advocate appears on behalf of State and submits, petitioner does
not have right of audience. He is 2nd purchaser from original
lessee, who had appeared before the authority in making of
impugned order dated 18th July, 1987. Miss. Sahu submits, 1st
purchase from original allottee was duly made with permission.
Mr. Nanda clarifies original lessee was a scheduled caste person.
3. Three reasons have been given in impugned order. They are
reproduced below.
"1. Enquiry has not been caused properly by the
Tahasildar as required U/R 3(3) of the O.G.L.S.
Rules, 1974.
2. Proclamation inviting objections has not been
properly served as provided U/R 3(5) of the O.G.L.S.
Rules, 1974. The places and the period of publication
of the proclamation are not in conformity with the
Rules.
3. It has not been ascertained on enquiry if the O.P. is
landless and if he has no other profitable means of
livelihood in order to be eligible for settlement of land
under the Act and Rules in force."
State will file counter by 22nd February, 2023, as prayed for. In it
State is expected to disclose substantial basis for aforesaid three
findings in impugned order. In other words, when reason no.1 says
enquiry has not been properly caused by the Tahasildar, there
must be substance disclosed to show that there was something that
was missed in the enquiry. In 2nd reason, of proclamation not
properly made, there must be evidence of some affected person(s),
who came forward to say so, So also for the 3rd reason, for original
allottee belonging to scheduled caste was found to have possessed
land as not being landless as on prior to date of allotment. These
observations are only for purpose of enquiry into the matter by
Court.
4. Petitioner may file rejoinder, to be accepted on adjourned
date upon advance copy served.
5. List on 1st March, 2023.
6. Status quo be maintained till next date of hearing.
(Arindam Sinha)
Judge
PCD
(S.K. Mishra)
Judge
