Orissa High Court
Anusaya Samal vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 25 November, 2024
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.24175 of 2024
Anusaya Samal .... Petitioner
M/s. Milan Kanungo, Senior Advocate & Associates
-Versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. P.K. Ray, AGA
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
25.11.2024
Order No.
03. 1. Heard Mr. Kanungo, learned Senior Advocate appearing for
the petitioner and Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State.
2. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the
impugned order dated 15th March, 2024 passed in connection with
O.S.S. Case No.838 of 2022 under Annexure-1 besides the order in
Settlement Objection Case No. 13871 of 2013 vide Annexure-6 and
further to direct opposite parties to allow conversion of the case
land to 'Gharabari' on the grounds stated therein.
3. Mr. Kanungo, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner
would submit that the vendor was the lessee and the case land was
transferred by him to the petitioner by virtue of a validly executed
sale deed in the year, 1994 and thereafter, he approached the
authorities below for mutation and conversion of it to 'Gharabari'
which has, however, been declined by the impugned order under
Annexure-1. The contention is that a portion of the leasehold has
been settled with one Jayshree Das by order dated 22nd March,
2022 in O.S.S. Case No.1421 of 2017 by the orders of the Board of
Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack, whereas, the petitioner has been
discriminated. The further contention of Mr. Kanungo, learned
Senior Advocate is that such mutation and conversion vis-à-vis the
schedule land has been refused on the premise that the lease record
to be not available and that apart, the Kisam stands recorded as
Jungle-II in the 1962 Settlement. It is contended that the
characteristics of the case land has changed in the meantime and in
view of Annexure-7, mutation should have been allowed in favour
of the petitioner along with the conversion of the same to
'Gharabari' but instead, it has resulted in passing of the impugned
order under Annexure-1, which is, hence, liable to be interfered with
and set aside with consequential directions issued. It is again
contended that at the time of leasehold and subsequent thereto, the
case land was recorded with Kissam Sarada-III as per the RoR as at
Annexure-2, hence, the mutation and conversion could not have
been denied with such a plea of Kisam being Jungle-II and therefore,
the impugned order under Annexure-1 cannot be sustained in law.
4. Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State, on the other hand,
refers to Annexure-9 to submit that a joint verification in respect of
the case plot was held in the year, 2023 and it was revealed that the
Kisam of the original plot to have been recorded as 'Chhota Jungle'
as per 1962 Settlement RoR. It is submitted that the lease record was
not available at the time of the verification held, hence, therefore,
rightly the mutation as well as conversion was refused by the
authorities below and therefore, the impugned order under
Annexure-1 should not be disturbed.
5. In course of hearing, Mr. Kanungo, learned Senior Advocate
submits that at the time of the lease deed in favour of the vendor,
the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 was not in force. It is further
submitted that in a similarly situated case this Court in W.P.(C)
No.9857 of 2007 (M/s. Swamy Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Vrs. State of Orissa
& others) by judgment dated 19th February, 2008 interfered with the
orders of revocation of lease and passed consequential orders. It is
contended that even though originally the Kisam of the land was
recorded as such, since the characteristics of the same have changed
in the meantime and presently, being used by the petitioner as a
homestead, Mr. Kanungo, learned Senior Advocate referring the
decision (supra) with an analogy claims that the impugned order
under Annexure-1 should be set aside with a direction for issuance of
mutation RoR and conversion in favour of the petitioner.
6. Admittedly, an inquiry was held so revealed from
Annexure-9 series, wherein, it has been reported that the land in
question would not be within the limits of Wild Life Sanctuary on its
Eco-sensitive Zone and that apart, as per the District Level
Committee report, it does not lie within the area earmarked as
forest land in view of the decision of Apex Court in T.N.
Godavarman Thirumulpad Vrs. Union of India and others in Writ
Petition (Civil) No.202 of 1995. In fact, considering Annexure-9
series and the report dated 20th April, 2023, it is made to
understand that the case land is no more of Jungle Kisam but has
been so recorded in Hal RoR.
7. Considering the facts pleaded on record and submissions of
Mr. Kanungo, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and Mr.
Ray, learned AGA for the State and in view of such acquisition of
title by the petitioner over the case land in view of the sale deed of
the year, 1994 and was followed by a verification and the
submission report by the concerned DFO as At Annexure-9 series,
notwithstanding any such Kisam to have been recorded as 'Jungle'
and 'Chhota Jungle' as per 1962 RoR, for the fact that the
characteristics of the same have changed, the Court is of the
conclusion that opposite party No.2 should reconsider the matter
and before any such final order is passed, to trace out the record in
W.L. Case No.1669 of 1974. The Court is of the above view for the
reason that the petitioner has acquired the interest vis-à-vis the
schedule land in 1994 and to be in possession till date but it has
been recorded with Kisam Jungle in the last RoR.
8. Accordingly, it is ordered.
9 In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of with a
direction to opposite party No.2 to reconsider issuance of mutation
RoR and conversion in respect of the case land in favour of the
petitioner in the light of the observations made hereinabove and
direction issued and to conclude to the same in connection with
O.S.S. Case No.838 of 2022 at the earliest preferably within a
period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The Court further directs that an opportunity of personal hearing
shall be provided to the petitioner and with the record in Lease
Case No. 1669 of 1974 in place for examination and to pass a final
order within the above stipulated period. As a necessary corollary,
the impugned order under Annexure-1 is hereby set aside with the
matter being remanded back to the concerned authority for disposal
according to law.
10. Urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules,
Digitally Signed Judge
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason:Balaram
Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 26-Nov-2024 11:09:39
