Orissa High Court
Rupalaxmi Sethi vs The State Of Odisha And Others on 13 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.2916 of 2018
(Through Hybrid mode)
Rupalaxmi Sethi .... Petitioner
-versus-
The State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Learned advocates appeared in this case:
For petitioner: Mr. G. M. Rath, Advocate
Mr. S. K. Padhy, Advocate
Mr. D. Varadwaj, Advocate
Mr. A. P. Rath, Advocate
For opposite parties: Mr. A. K. Sharma, AGA
CORAM:
JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
JUDGMENT
13.01.2023
ARINDAM SINHA, J.
1. Mr. Padhy, led by Mr. Rath, learned advocates appear on
behalf of petitioner. With leave of his leader Mr. Padhy submits, his
client is one of successive subsequent purchasers, from original
allottee, in respect of the leasehold interest transferred to him. Lease
Revision Case no.9 of 2015 was initiated suo motu by the authority.
In said case by impugned order dated 8th November, 2017 the
// 2 //
authority cancelled the lease sanctioned in favour of original allottee,
on 25th July, 1973.
2. Original allottee had transferred his leasehold interest in the
meantime. Successive transfers were made and ultimately his client
purchased leasehold interest in respect of part of original lease
allotment. Other similarly placed purchasers had, by separate
respective writ petition assailed impugned order passed in Lease
Revision Cases initiated against them. By decision dated 11th
December, 2019 of co-ordinate Bench in Acrux Realcon Pvt. Ltd.
vs. State of Orissa, reported in 2020 (I) ILR-CUT, 262 orders
passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar in Lease
Revision Case nos.1 to 13 of 2015, were set aside. Mr. Padhy points
out, Lease Revision Case no.9 of 2015, dealt with by the authority, is
one of the cases, in which impugned orders herein passed was set
aside by the co-ordinate Bench.
3. State filed Special Leave Petition, inter alia, against said
decision. By order dated 27th November, 2020 in Special Leave
Petition (Civil) no.20294 of 2020 ( The State of Odisha and others
vs. M/s. Acrux Realcon Pvt. Ltd.), the Supreme Court was not
inclined to interfere with impugned order and accordingly the Special
Leave Petition was dismissed.
WP(C) no.2916 of 2018
// 3 //
4. Mr. Sharma, learned advocate, Additional Government
Advocate appears on behalf of State. He submits, the Additional
District Magistrate invoked provision in section 7-A (3) of Odisha
Government Land Settlement Act, 1962. He relies on order dated 6th
April, 2022 passed by the First Division Bench of this Court in, inter
alia, W.P.(C) no.33349 of 2011 (Asha Hans vs. State of Odisha and
others) to submit, said Bench took view that with fraud being played
on the authority concerned, who failed to follow procedure and as a
result illegality was committed, the Court was of considered view that
the fraud detected, in that case, in year, 1998 and therefore, the
authority had promptly taken action and proceeded to cancel the
leases. He submits, this was also done regarding sanction of lease
dated 27th July, 1973 to original lessee Hari Dehury. The cancellation
was in respect of the lease and took effect against all subsequent
transferees. He submits further, ground of limitation is not available
to petitioner.
5. Only ground taken by petitioner is that impugned order stands
covered by Acrux Realcon Pvt. Ltd. (supra). As aforesaid
impugned order was passed in Lease Revision Case no.9 of 2015
being included in those Lease Revision Cases, on which it was made.
The co-ordinate Bench had set aside the order. State had
WP(C) no.2916 of 2018
// 4 //
unsuccessfully petitioned for Special Leave Petition. In the
circumstances, petitioner must succeed.
6. View taken in Asha Hans (supra) is of no aid to petitioner
because the power under section 7-A(3) is to be exercised and was
found to have been duly exercised in that case. In this case converse
was found and decided by Acrux Realcon Pvt. Ltd. (supra).
7. Impugned order is set aside and quashed. The writ petition is
allowed and disposed of. Petitioner is at liberty to produce this order
and seek consequential action on her requirement to have her interest
in the land recorded.
( Arindam Sinha )
Judge
( S. K. Mishra )
Judge
Prasant
WP(C) no.2916 of 2018
