Orissa High Court
Smt. Subarna Ghosh vs State Of Odisha And Others on 23 March, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 5242 of 2017
(Through hybrid mode)
Smt. Subarna Ghosh .... Petitioner
Mr. Prasanta Ku. Satapathy, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. G.N. Rout, ASC
CORAM:
JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
ORDER
23.03.2023
Order No.
6. 1. Mr. Satapathy, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner
and submits, his client is purchaser after 10 years of allotment of lease
in respect of the land. There was no permission required, regarding the
transfer. By impugned order dated 29th April, 1998 the authority
cancelled order dated 7th November, 1974 of allotment of lease. The
cancellation was beyond prescribed period of limitation of 14 years.
Apart, his client was not noticed in the suo motu revision case. He
submits, consistent view taken by this Court has been that there was
requirement to notice the purchaser(s).
// 2 //
2. We have perused impugned order in revision dated 29th April,
1998, by which grant of lease by order dated 7th November, 1974 was
cancelled with consequential directions. We find from impugned
order, section 17 in Limitation Act, 1963 was relied upon to overcome
the bar of limitation imposed by second proviso in, since repealed,
section 7A (3) of Odisha Government Land Settlement Act, 1962.
3. We reproduce below paragraph-5 from our order dated 27th
February, 2023.
"Perused the order-sheet disclosed as annexure-2
in the writ petition containing orders dated 16th
September, 1974 and 7th November, 1974 in W.L. Case
no.2449 of 1974. It gives rise to necessity to call for the
record since, State has alleged fraud. State will produce
the record in W.L. Case no.2449 of 1974 on adjourned
date. Adjournment is granted as opportunity to State, in
spite of our observations recorded above. Hence, it is
made clear, if the record is not produced on adjourned
date, we will deal with the writ petition."
4. Mr. Rout, learned advocate, Additional Standing Counsel
appears on behalf of State and produces the record. He points out
therefrom that kisam of land in respect of the grant is 'Chot Jungle'.
The lease was for purpose of agriculture. There was finding that the
land had not been used for the purpose lease was granted.
// 3 //
5. The points arising for adjudication in this writ petition all
stand adjudicated and thereby covered by our judgment dated 2nd
March, 2023 in W.P.(C) no.10073 of 2016 (Bidyadhar Dash v.
State of Odisha and others).
6. Impugned order dated 29th April, 1998 cancelling the lease is
set aside and quashed. Concerned authorities will cause correction in
the record within four weeks of communication.
7. The writ petition is disposed of.
(Arindam Sinha)
Judge
(S.K. Mishra)
Judge
Sks
