Orissa High Court
Diptish Kumar Das vs State Of Odisha And Others on 25 June, 2025
Author: K.R. Mohapatra
Bench: K.R. Mohapatra
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 03-Jul-2025 11:05:52
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 30576 OF 2024
(An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India)
*****
Diptish Kumar Das
...... Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Odisha and others
....... Opp. Parties
Advocates appeared:
For Petitioner : Mr. S.S.K. Nayak, Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Mr. Sabita Ranjan Pattnaik,
Additional Government Advocate
CORAM :
MR. JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
------------------------------------------------
Heard and disposed of on 25.06.2025
----------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
By the Bench;
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. This I.A. has been filed to dispense with filing of
certified copy of Annexures-1 and 3 to the writ petition.
3. Order under Annexure-1 is the order sheet in W.L.L Case
No.179 of 1977 of the Court of Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar and
Annexure-3 is the copy of the order dated 29th April, 1999
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 03-Jul-2025 11:05:52 // 2 //
passed by learned Additional District Magistrate, Khurda in
Revision Case No.57 of 1998. Certified copies of both are filed
with analogous writ petition, i.e., W.P. (C) No.30579 of 2024.
Hence, the Petitioner need not file the same with the present
writ petition.
4. In view of the above, filing of certified copy of
Annexures-1 and 3 is dispensed with for the time being.
5. I.A. is accordingly disposed of.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge
(Savitri Ratho)
Judge
W.P.(C) No. 30576 OF 2024
1. The Petitioner in this writ petition seeks to assail the
order dated 29th April, 1999 (Annexure-3) passed by learned
Additional District Magistrate, Khurda in Revision Case No.57
of 1998 initiated under Section 7A(3) of the Odisha Government
Land Settlement Act, 1962 (for brevity 'the Act').
2. Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits
that one, Golak Bihari Samantray, being Ex-army personnel, was
leased out Ac.5.00 decimals of land in Plot No. 67 under Khata
No.237 situated in Mouza Similipatana under Bhubaneswar
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 03-Jul-2025 11:05:52 // 3 //
Tahasil in the district of Khurda (for brevity 'the case land'),
pursuant to order dated 2nd June, 1977 of Tahasildar,
Bhubaneswar in W.L. Lease Case No.179 of 1977. A lease deed
was also executed in favour of the lessee observing the
formalities. After expiry of the period of restrictions to transfer
the land mentioned in the lease deed, the lessee, namely, Golak
Bihari Samantray for his legal necessities alienated Ac.0.01
decimals out of the case land to the Petitioner by executing
Registered Sale Deed dated 13th September, 1994 (Annexure-2)
and delivered possession to the Petitioner. Since then, the
Petitioner is in possession over the land he has purchased out of
the case land exercising his right, title and interest thereon.
Proceeding under Section 7A(3) of the Act in Revision Case
No.57 of 1998 was initiated alleging material irregularities in
leasing out the case land in favour of the vendor of the
Petitioner. Although notices were issued to the vendor of the
Petitioner, but no notice, whatsoever, was served on the
Petitioner to contest the proceeding although learned Additional
District Magistrate, Khurda was aware of the fact that separate
parcels of the case land had already been sold to different
persons including the Petitioner by the time the suo motu
revision, i.e., Revision Case No.57 of 1998 was taken up for
adjudication. Alleging material irregularities in settling the land
in favour of the vendor of the Petitioner, learned Additional
District Magistrate held that the lease granted in W.L. Lease
Case No.179 of 1977 was illegal and irregular. Learned
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 03-Jul-2025 11:05:52 // 4 //
Additional District Magistrate, therefore, set aside the order
dated 2nd June, 1977 of Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar settling the
case land in favour of the vendor of the Petitioner.
Consequently, the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar was directed to
correct the Record of Right (RoR) and take over possession of
the case land. Accordingly, the case land was taken back to the
government khata (record) by correcting the RoR.
2.1 When the RoR of the case land, out of which the
Petitioner had purchased Ac.0.01 decimals, was recorded in
government khata, the Petitioner filed Revision Case No. 689 of
2022 under Section 15(b) of the Odisha Survey and Settlement
Act, 1958 before the Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha,
Cuttack for correction of RoR. At the stage of argument of the
said revision, it came to light that the lease granted in favour of
the vendor of the Petitioner was cancelled and the case land was
taken to government khata pursuant to the direction in Revision
Case No.57 of 1998. Hence, finding no other alternative, the
Petitioner has filed this writ petition. As such, there occurred
some delay in filing the writ petition, which is bona fide and not
intentional.
3. Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits
that at the time of purchase, the Petitioner had verified the
records, i.e., the order passed in W.L.L. Case No.179 of 1977
settling the case land in favour of Golak Bihari Samantray, who
was an Ex-army personnel and the RoR published in his name
together with allied documents such as rent receipts etc. On a
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 03-Jul-2025 11:05:52 // 5 //
bona fide belief that the said Golak Bihari Samantray was the
rightful owner in possession of the case land, the Petitioner had
purchased Ac.0.01 decimals out of the case land and was
delivered with possession. Learned Additional District
Magistrate while discussing the case in the impugned order
under Annexure-3, had categorically observed that the vendor of
the Petitioner had sold the land to different persons. Thus, the
Revisional Authority, at the time of adjudication of the revision,
had knowledge that the case land had already been sold to
different persons including the Petitioner by the time the revision
was taken up for disposal. As such, learned Additional District
Magistrate ought to have provided an opportunity of hearing to
the Petitioner.
4. It is further submitted by Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for
the Petitioner that learned Additional District Magistrate had no
jurisdiction to initiate suo motu revision under Section 7A(3) of
the Act, as the lease was granted as per the Government Grants
Act, 1895. From the order sheet of W.L.L. Case No.179 of
1977, it is also clear that the procedure prescribed under the
Government Grants Act, 1895 was followed by the Tahasildar,
Bhubaneswar while settling the case land in favour of the vendor
of the Petitioner. These aspects were brushed aside by learned
Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar while adjudicating
Revision Case No.57 of 1998. As such, the impugned order
under Annexure-3 is per se illegal and is without jurisdiction.
Hence, he prays for setting aside the impugned order under
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 03-Jul-2025 11:05:52 // 6 //
Annexure-3 and to direct the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar to correct
the RoR in respect of the land, the Petitioner has purchased in
his name.
5. Mr. Pattnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate
supporting the impugned order under Annexure-3, submitted
that the mandatory provisions provided under the Act as well as
the Odisha Government Land Settlement Rules, 1972 was not
followed while granting the lease in favour of the vendor of the
Petitioner in W.L.L. Case No.179 of 1977. Elaborating his
submission, Mr. Pattnaik, learned Additional Government
Advocate submits that perusal of the order sheet of W.L.L. Case
No.179 of 1977 clearly reveals that there are material
irregularities in settling the case land in favour of Golak Bihari
Samantray, the vendor of the Petitioner. Proclamation was not
made in accordance with law. As such, the lease granted in
favour of the vendor of the Petitioner was irregular and was
rightly cancelled by setting aside the final order dated 2nd June,
1977 (Annexure-1) passed by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar in
W.L.L. Case No 179 of 1977.
5.1. It is his submission that since the lease itself was illegal
and irregular and suffered from material irregularities, any
alienation of the case land or portion thereof in favour of the
Petitioner or any other person(s) is per se illegal. He, however,
submits that the field enquiry report of the concerned R.I.
revealed that the lessee, namely, Golak Bihari Samantray had
sold the case land to different persons. The field enquiry report
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 03-Jul-2025 11:05:52 // 7 //
was also taken note of by learned Additional District Magistrate,
Bhubaneswar at the time of adjudication of Revision Case No.57
of 1998. He, further submits that adhering to the principles of
natural justice by providing opportunity of hearing to the
Petitioner would have been an empty formality. Thus, no
illegality was committed by learned Additional District
Magistrate in cancelling the lease without providing any
opportunity to the Petitioner. As such, the writ petition merits
no consideration and is liable to be dismissed.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record placed before us.
7. From the record, it reveals that the case land was leased
out in favour of the vendor of the Petitioner, namely, Golak
Bihari Samantray, pursuant to the order dated 2nd June, 1977
passed by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar in W.L.L. Case No.179
of 1977. While entertaining the lease case, the Tahasildar,
Bhubaneswar relied upon the Resolution No.19431 dated 26th
April, 1977, wherein concession by the Home Department was
granted for allotment of land in favour of Jawan, like the vendor
of the Petitioner. Alleging material irregularity in settling the
case land in favour of the vendor of the Petitioner by way of
lease, suo motu proceeding under Section 7A(3) of the Act was
initiated on the file of learned Additional District Magistrate,
Bhubaneswar in Revision Case No.57 of 1998.
7.1. Perusal of the impugned order dated 29th April, 1999
(Annexure-3) reveals that the Revisional Authority, namely,
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 03-Jul-2025 11:05:52 // 8 //
learned Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar was aware
of the fact that the case land, which was leased out in favour of
the vendor of the Petitioner, namely, Golak Bihari Samantray
had already been sold to different persons by the time said
revision was taken up for adjudication. Thus, the Petitioner,
being the purchaser of a parcel of the case land, should have
been given an opportunity of hearing at the time of adjudication
of the revision. Certainly, the impugned order under Annexure-3
takes away a valuable civil right of the Petitioner without
affording him an opportunity of haring.
8. Although Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the Petitioner
submits that the lease in favour of Golak Bihari Samantray was
granted under the provisions of the Government Grants Act,
1895, but from the record available before this Court, it is not
clear under which provision of law, the lease was granted in
favour of said Golak Bihari Samantray in W.L.L. Case No.179
of 1977. The same is a matter of enquiry. It further appears that
the Revisional Authority had not discussed, as to how, the
proclamation made was irregular and there are material
irregularities in settling the land in favour of the vendor of the
Petitioner.
9. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the
impugned order under Annexure-3 suffers from violation of
principles of natural justice. Had the Petitioner been given an
opportunity of hearing, he could have brought to the notice of
the Revisional Authority the contentions which are being raised
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 03-Jul-2025 11:05:52 // 9 //
in this writ petition and in that event, the final order passed in
Revision Case No.57 of 1998 might have been different.
10. Accordingly, the impugned order under Annexure-3 is set
aside and the matter is remitted to the Additional District
Magistrate, Bhubaneswar for adjudication of Revision Case
No.57 of 1998 afresh giving opportunity of hearing to the
persons likely to be affected including the Petitioner as well as
said Golak Bihari Samantray or persons claiming under him.
11. This writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. In
the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as
to costs.
12. The consequential RoR, recording the case land in
government khata, be kept in abeyance till disposal of the
Revision Case No.57 of 1998.
Urgent certified copy of this judgment be granted on
proper application.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge
(Savitri Ratho)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated 25th June, 2025/Madhusmita
