Partly allowed

Sanjukta Sahoo v. State

Orissa HC27 Apr 2021WP(C)/2629/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a lease cancellation order. Court found the impugned order passed under suo motu powers under Section 7-A(3) of the OGLS Act, 1962 violated the right to hear. The petition was allowed and the matter remanded for a fresh hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 20.08.1987 setting aside the lease was set aside and matter restored to Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar for fresh hearing.

Sanjukta Sahoo Vs State — Land Acquisition | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.2629 of 2007

¶3

Sanjukta Sahoo …. Petitioner
Mr. P.K. Mohanty, Advocate
-versus-
….
State of Orissa and others Opposite Parties
Mr. S. Palit, A.G.A.

¶4

CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY

Order No.

ORDER
27.04.2021

This matter is taken up by video conferencing mode.

¶9

The Petitioner challenging the order dated 20^th August, 1987 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar (Opposite Party No.3) has preferred the present petition.

¶10

In W.L. Lease Case No.2925/1974, an extent of land measuring area Ac.2.00 decimal in Plot No.37 of Khata No.343 in village Shyamsundarpur under Bhubaneswar Tahasil was granted in favour of the original lessee, namely, Pramod Kumar Mishra (Opposite Party No.4). He subsequently sold a portion of the land measuring an area Ac.1.00 decimal out of Ac.2.00 decimal of land to the Petitioner vide registered sale deed dated 10^th August, 1981. Since the date of her purchase, she is in peaceful possession

¶11

Page 1 of 4

¶12

of the land by paying the land revenue. Later when she applied for correction of ROR, came to know from the settlement authority that by order dated 20^th August, 1987 passed in Lease Revision Case No.510/1987 (the present impugned order), Opposite Party No.3 has cancelled the lease granted in favour of the original lessee.

¶13

It is contended by the Petitioner that when cancelling the lease, no notice was served upon the present Petitioner though she is in peaceful possession of the land in question since the date of her purchase. Further, the impugned order has been passed by Opposite Party No.3 without any valid ground to cancel the lease.

¶14

Perusal of the impugned order dated 20^th August, 1987 reveal that Opposite Party No.3 in exercise of his suo motu power under Section 7-A(3) of the OGLS Act, 1962 has initiated Lease Revision Case No.510/1987. 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.

¶15

The stand of the present Petitioner that she purchased the land in 1981 is not controverted by the Opposite Parties.

¶16

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

¶17

Page 2 of 4

¶18

over the land in question is not disputed, we think it proper to send back the matter to the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar for re-hearing afresh.

¶19

Under the circumstances stated above, the Court sets aside the impugned order dated 20^th August, 1987 (Annexure-4) passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar in Lease Revision Case No.510/1987 and restores the said revision case to the file of the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar for being listed for directions before him on 1^st June, 2021 at 11 A.M. The Petitioner will appear on that date along with her 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, Bhubaneswar will pass a fresh reasoned order in accordance with law not later than 6^th September, 2021. The said order shall be communicated to the Petitioner not later than 13^th September, 2021. If aggrieved by such order, it would be open to the Petitioner to seek appropriate remedies in accordance with law.

¶20

The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.

¶21

As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a printout of the order available in the High Court’s website, at par with certified copy, subject to attestation by the concerned advocate, in the manner prescribed vide Court’s Notice No.4587,

¶22

Page 3 of 4

¶23

dated 25^th March, 2020 as modified by Court’s Notice No.4798, dated 15^th April, 2021.

¶24

(Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice ( B.P. Routray) Judge

¶25

B.K. Barik

¶26

Page 4 of 4

Sanjukta Sahoo v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjukta 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

Chandra Mohan Singh Vs State

Surendra Jena Vs State

Vivek Kumar Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Sanjay Ku.Singh Vs State and Ors.

Suryakanta Penthei Vs State and Ors.

Abanti Debnath Vs State of Odisha