Remanded

Bidyadhar Sahoo v. State

Orissa HC2 Sept 2021WP(C)/13600/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa set aside an order cancelling a land lease because it was passed without serving notice or granting a hearing to the land purchaser, violating Section 7-A(3) of the OGLS Act. The case was remanded for re-hearing.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order cancelling the lease is set aside; the matter restored to the Additional District Magistrate for re-hearing and fresh reasoned order.

Bidyadhar Sahoo Vs State — Property and Title | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.13600 of 2008

¶3

Bidyadhar Sahoo

¶4

…. Petitioner Mr. G. Behera, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Orissa and others …. Opposite Parties Mr. M.S. Sahoo, A.G.A.

¶7

CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY

ORDER 02.09.2021

Order No.

The Petitioner challenges the order dated 30^th June, 1998 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Khurda (Opposite Party No.2).

¶12

By order dated 20^th March, 1975 in W.L. Case No.562/1975, an extent of land measuring area Ac.1.500 decimal in Sabik Plot No.16 of Khata No.232 in village Madhupur, P.S.-Chandaka under Bhubaneswar Tahasil was granted in favour of the original lessee, namely, Nari Nayak (Opposite Party No.4). He subsequently sold the land to the Petitioner vide Registered Sale Deed No.3436 dated 26^th July, 1993. Since the date of purchase, he states that he is in peaceful possession of the land. He claims that when he went to pay the land revenue in the year 2007, he came to know from the authority that by order dated 30^th June 1998 passed in Revision Case No.538/1998 (the present impugned order), Opposite Party No.2 has cancelled the lease granted in favour of the original lessee.

¶13

Page 1 of 3

¶14

It is contended by the Petitioner that before cancelling the lease, no notice was served upon him though he is in peaceful possession of the land in question since the date of its purchase. Further, the impugned order has been passed by Opposite Party No.2 without any valid ground to cancel the lease.

¶15

A perusal of the impugned order dated 30^th June, 1998 reveals that Opposite Party No.2 in exercise of his suo motu power under Section 7-A(3) of the OGLS Act, 1962 has initiated Revision Case No.538/1998. The said impugned order does not reveal service of notice upon the present Petitioner at any point of time nor any opportunity of hearing granted to the present Petitioner before passing the impugned order.

¶16

The stand of the present Petitioner that he purchased the land in 1993 is not controverted by the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties in their counter could not able to produce any material to reveal service of notice on the Petitioner nor could able to show that the Petitioner was in fact granted any opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order.

¶17

Though the provision under Section 7-A(3) of the OGLS Act specifically provides that, no order shall be passed under this subsection without giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the person affected, but the same has not been followed here. Since the subsequent possession and ownership of the Petitioner over the land in question is not disputed, we think it proper to

¶18

Page 2 of 3

¶19

send back the matter to the Additional District Magistrate, Khurda for re-hearing afresh.

¶20

Under the circumstances stated above, the Court sets aside the impugned order dated 30^th June, 1998 (Annexure-2) passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Khurda in Revision Case No.538/1998 and restores the said revision case to the file of the Additional District Magistrate, Khurda for being listed for directions before him on 1^st November, 2021 at 11 A.M. The Petitioner will appear on that date along with his counsel, if any. After hearing the Petitioner and considering the materials which is submitted and the response of the Petitioner to the documents available on record with the Opposite Parties, copy of which will be provided to the Petitioner, the Additional District Magistrate, Khurda will pass a fresh reasoned order in accordance with law not later than 7^th February, 2022. The said order shall be communicated to the Petitioner not later than 14^th February, 2022. If aggrieved by such order, it would be open to the Petitioner to seek appropriate remedies in accordance with law.

¶21

The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.

¶22

An urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.

¶23

( B.P. Routray)

¶24

B.K. Barik

¶25

Page 3 of 3

Bidyadhar Sahoo v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bidyadhar Sahoo v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raghunath Bag and Ors. Vs State and Ors.

Commnr.of Sales Tax. Vs E.E.,O.S.E.B.

Spaa Straw Board Vs Commnr. of Sales Tax

Watershed Asn.Larka Vs Mission Leader

Vicky Jain Vs State

Hrudananda Das Vs Collector,Bhadrak