Remanded

Chapala Pani v. State and Ors.

Orissa HC23 Apr 2021WP(C)/7425/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court judgment quashed an impugned order cancelling a land lease without granting the petitioners an opportunity of hearing, violating natural justice under the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act, and restored the matter for a fresh decision.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the impugned order dated 21st September, 1987; restore the revision case to the ADM Bhubaneswar for a fresh reasoned order within 60 days.

Chapala Pani Vs State and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.7425 of 2012

¶3

Chapala Pani and Another

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. Sanjaya Kumar Samantaray, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Odisha and Others

¶8

…. Opp. Parties Mr. D. K. Mohanty, A.G.A. for O.Ps.

¶9

CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY

ORDER

Order No.

23.04.2021

The matter is taken up by video conferencing mode.

¶15

The order dated 21^st September, 1987 of the Additional District Magistrate (ADM), Bhubaneswar passed in Suo Motu Revision Case No.629 of 1987 has been challenged in the present writ petition.

¶16

The Petitioner contends that her husband late Maguni Charan Pani is the bonafide purchaser of the land extending an area of Ac.0.250 decimal out of total extent of Ac.1.000 decimal in Sabik Plot No.1255/1623/1 under Khata No.420 of Mouza-Patharagadia from Smt. Hara Dei (Opposite Party No.5). The land was originally granted to Opposite Party No.5, who was a land less person, in W.L.Lease Case No.1767 of 1974 by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar. Pursuant to the said order of lease, the Records of Right (ROR) was issued in her favour. Subsequently, the ADM (Opposite Party No.1), in exercise of suo motu revisional power under Section 7-A(3) of

¶17

Page 1 of 4

¶18

// 2 //

¶19

the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 (OGLS Act), initiated a suo motu proceeding in 1987 and without granting any opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners, has cancelled the lease ex-parte. When the Petitioners took steps for correction of the ROR during the Hal settlement operation, they came to know about such order of cancellation of lease passed by the ADM under Annexure-3.

¶20

Mr. D. K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the original lessee sold the land before completion of ten years from the date of lease order and thereby violated the conditions of the lease and as such no relief can be granted in favour of the Petitioners.

¶21

Upon perusal of the impugned order under Annexure-3 it reveals that no opportunity of being heard has been granted to the Petitioners though they were the owners in possession of the land through sale by the original lessee to late Maguni Charan Pani upon execution of the registered sale deed No.6785 dated 5^th September, 1981. Section 7-A (3) of the Act provides that no order shall be passed under that provision without granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the person affected. Here in the instant case the same has clearly been violated as the late husband of Petitioner No.1 purchased the land on 5^th September, 1981, whereas the impugned order was passed on 21^st September, 1987. On this score only the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶22

The submissions led by Mr. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate that the original lessee cannot sell the

¶23

Page 2 of 4

¶24

// 3 //

¶25

land before completion of ten years does not find support from the provisions of the OGLS Act or Rules and the impugned order does not speak the same as a ground for cancellation of the lease. However, perusal of the ROR filed under Annexure-1 reveals the conditions stipulated therein is not to sale the land within a period of five years from the date of issuance of the ROR.

¶26

Since the basic principles of natural justice of giving opportunity of hearing has not been granted to the Petitioners, we feel it proper to send back the matter to the revisional authority for decision afresh.

¶27

Under the circumstances stated above, the Court sets aside the impugned order dated 21^st September, 1987 (Annexure-3) passed by the ADM, Bhubaneswar in Suo Motu Revision Case No.629 of 1987 and restores the said revision case to the file of the ADM, Bhubaneswar for being listed for directions before him on 1^st June, 2021 at 11 A.M. The Petitioners will appear on that date along with their counsel, if any. After hearing the Petitioners and considering the materials which are submitted and the response of the Petitioners to the documents available on record with the Opposite Parties, copy of which will be provided to the Petitioners, the ADM, 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 Petitioners not later than 13^th September, 2021. If aggrieved by such order, it would be open to the Petitioners to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law.

¶28

Page 3 of 4

¶29

// 4 //

¶30

The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.

¶31

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

¶32

M.K. Panda

¶33

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

¶34

Page 4 of 4

Chapala Pani v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chapala Pani v. State and Ors.

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

Utkal Manufacturing Vs State

Ganapati Enterprises Vs State and Ors.

Kalyani Maternity Vs Bmc,Bhubaneswar

Kishore Chandra Behera Vs Tahasildar,Odapadar

Viresh Hemani Vs Income Tax Officer,W

Tata Refractories Vs Union of Inida