Orissa High Court
Tusar Kant Mishra vs State Of Odisha And Others on 8 February, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.20916 of 2016
Tusar Kant Mishra .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Advocates appeared in this case :
For Petitioner : Mr. Jagjit Panda, Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Mr. G. N. Rout, Advocate
(Addl. Standing Counsel)
CORAM:
JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of hearing and Judgment 08.02.2023
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARINDAM SINHA, J.
1. Petitioner is purchaser from original allottee. Said allottee got
allotment on belonging to a Scheduled Tribe. It is undisputed that the allottee,
after obtaining permission under section 22 of Orissa Land Reforms Act,
1960 had sold it away to petitioner. The authority had initiated Lease
Revision Case no.106 of 1998 in respect of the lease. Original allottee not
having responded to the notice, the case was dealt with resulting in
cancellation of the lease. On coming to know, petitioner moved this Court by
WP(C) no.6145 of 2007, disposed of by order dated 26th November, 2010.
There was direction for the authority to go into the matter. There was also
direction for petitioner to appear before the authority, for the latter to fix a
date for filing petitioner's show-cause and thereafter proceed with the case
and dispose of it in terms of decision in Gopaldas Agrawal v. State of
Orissa, reported in 2005(II) OLR 475.
2. Mr. Panda, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and
submits, initiation of the lease case was barred by limitation. It is only in
year, 2013 that there was amendment deleting the provision. The authority
relied upon the amendment to justify the cancellation order. It could not be so
done. In any event no reasons were given. He seeks interference and
appropriate direction for recording his client's name against the land.
3. Mr. Rout, learned advocate, Additional Standing Counsel appears on
behalf of State. He submits, by the 2013 amendment the bar of limitation was
removed. As such, there was no illegality committed by the authority in
treating the case to have application of the amended provision in section 7A,
of Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960.
4. We notice that by said order dated 26th November, 2010 the matter was
remitted back to the Additional District Magistrate for fresh disposal. That is
permissible procedure in civil cases, for remand. It does not make the case a
fresh case. Such is amply demonstrated by impugned order stating
registration and number of the case as Lease Revision Case no.106 of 1998.
Amendment to a provision in the Act, deleting a provision therein cannot be
said to be retrospective in operation.
5. It is not necessary to go into any other aspect regarding challenge to
impugned order. The lease revision case was initiated beyond the period of
limitation, as on existing provision at the time it was initiated. Nothing
further need be looked at.
6. Impugned order is set aside and quashed. Concerned authority is
directed to cause mutation in the record in respect of the land held by
petitioner.
7. The writ petition is allowed and disposed of.
8.
( Arindam Sinha )
Judge
( S. K. Mishra )
Judge
Prasant Sahoo
