Sandhya Nayak vs State Of Odisha
2025 Latest Caselaw 1670 Ori

Orissa High Court

Sandhya Nayak vs State Of Odisha on 24 July, 2025

Author: K.R. Mohapatra

Bench: K.R. Mohapatra

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                       WP(C) No.3011 of 2025

(An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India)

   Sandhya Nayak                                  ....       Petitioner
                                    -Versus-
  1. State of Odisha
  2. Collector & District Magistrate,
     Khurda
  3. Addl. District Magistrate,
     Bhubaneswar
  4. Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar
  5. Basanti Nayak
  6. Babu Nayak                       ....                  Opposite Parties

   Advocates appeared:

          For Petitioner:             Ms. Deepali Mahapatra, Advocate

          For Opposite Parties: Mr. Sabita Ranjan Pattanaik,
                                Additional Government Advocate
               CORAM:

               MR. JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
               MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO

                            JUDGMENT

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Heard and disposed of on 24.07.2025

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

By the Bench:

1. Petitioner in this writ application seeks to assail the order dated 21st September, 1987 (Annexure-4) passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar in Revision Case

No.737 of 1987 initiated under Section 7-A(3) of the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 (for brevity, 'the Act').

2. Ms. Mahapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that a piece of government land to an extent of Ac.1.00 decimal was leased out in favour of one Prafulla Nayak in WLL Case No.1834 of 1973 complying with the provisions of law.

When the matter stood thus, said Prafulla Nayak for his legal necessity filed an application under Section 22 of the OLR Act before the OLR authority for grant of permission to alienate the leasehold property for legal necessity. The said application was registered as Revenue Misc. Case No.404 of 1983. The Revenue Officer granted permission to said Prafulla Nayak vide order dated 20th December, 1983 to alienate the leasehold property. Thus, the Petitioner purchased an area of Ac.0.100 decimal out of Ac.1.00 decimal of leasehold property by registered sale deed dated 21st December, 1983. The lessee also delivered possession of the purchased land to the Petitioner. Since then the Petitioner is in possession over the suit property. After a lapse of more than 14 years, the Additional District Magistrate initiated a suo motu revision case under Section 7- A(3) of the Act which was registered as Revision Case No.737 of 1987. Although notice was issued to the lessee in the said lease case, but no notice was issued to the Petitioner who was the rightful owner in possession of the land, he had purchased. Thus, the Petitioner could not know about the initiation of the proceeding or the order passed in Revision Case No.737 of 1987. The said Prafulla Nayak upon receipt of notice had also

filed written objection in the said revision case. Without considering the objection raised by said Prafulla Nayak, impugned order dated 21st September, 1987 (Annexure-4) was passed cancelling the lease in favour of Prafulla Nayak. The Petitioner came to know about such cancellation in the year 2012. Thus, she approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

3. It is submitted by Ms. Mahapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioner that since the Petitioner had purchased the property much prior to the initiation of the Revision Case No.737 of 1987, the Additional District Magistrate should have issued notice to the Petitioner in the matter to have her say more particularly when the land in question was purchased by her on the basis of a permission granted by the OLR authority under Section 22 of the OLR Act. From the impugned order under Annexure-4 it is apparent that it suffers from non- application of judicial mind as well as non-compliance of principle of natural justice. A stereotype order has been passed in taking away a civil right created in favour of the Petitioner by purchasing the property from the rightful owner. Hence, she prays for setting aside the impugned order under Annexure-4 and to remit the matter to the Additional District Magistrate for fresh consideration in accordance with law giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned including the Petitioner to file their objection and participate in hearing of the case. She further submitted that the impugned order under Annexure-4 has already been set aside by orders passed by this Court in

different writ applications. She also submitted a list of those writ applications which are as follows:

(Keshab Ch. Swain v. Addl. D.M., Bhubaneswar and others)

(Ganesh Chandra Swain v. Addl. D.M., Bhubaneswar and others)

(Digambar Sahani v. Addl. D.M., Bhubaneswar)

(Nirod Ku. Swain v. Addl. D.M., Bhubaneswar)

She, therefore, submits that there is no difficulty in remitting the matter to the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar for proper adjudication of the revision in accordance with law.

4. Mr. Pattanaik, learned Additional Government Advocate has produced the original case record of Revision Case No.737 of 1987. Perused the same. On perusal of the case record, it appears that copy of the orders passed in aforesaid writ petitions, list of which has been submitted by Ms. Mahapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioner, are available in the case record. From the said orders, it is apparent that the order passed in Revision Case No.737 of 1987 has already been set aside and the said revision case is still pending with the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar, although the

Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar has been directed by this Court to dispose of the revision in accordance with law.

5. Perusal of the record also reveals that the Petitioner had earlier filed WP(C) No.25647 of 2012 which had been dismissed for default on 17th July, 2015. Babu Nayak, son of the original lessee Prafulla Nayak had filed WP(C) No.2513 of 2016 which has also been dismissed for default on 25th July, 2023.

6. Taking note of the submission made by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the original case record in Revision Case no.737 of 1987, this Court finds that the Petitioner was not served with notice of the said revision initiated suo motu under Section 7A(3) of the Act. Since the Petitioner had purchased part of the leasehold property in question much prior to the date of filing of Revision Case No.737 of 1987, she should have been provided with an opportunity of hearing in the matter. The impugned order has already been set aside in different writ petitions mentioned above.

7. Accordingly, the impugned order under Annexure-4 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Additional District Magistate, Bhubaneswar for fresh adjudication of the revision in accordance with law providing opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned including the Petitioner.

8. Since the revision was initiated in the year 1987, the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar is expected to take appropriate steps for early disposal of the writ petition providing opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned including the Petitioner as well as other purchasers of the leasehold property so also the lessee or any person claiming under him.

9. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent.

10. The original case record of Revision Case No.737 of 1987 is returned to Mr. Pattanaik, learned Additional Government Advocate, who shall remit the same immediately to the Court of Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar for early disposal of the said revision.

11. To avoid further delay in the matter, Petitioner is directed to appear before the Court of Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar on 11th August, 2025 to receive further instruction in the matter.

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

(Savitri Ratho) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated, the 24th July, 2025/RKS