Allowed

Bharat Nayak v. State and Ors.

Orissa HC3 Aug 2023WP(C)/24903/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa allowed the writ petition and quashed an Additional District Magistrate's order cancelling a lease under Section 7-A(3) of the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act, 1962, due to lack of specific reasons and failure to discuss inquiry findings.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned order dated 27.08.1987 cancelling the lease in W.L. Lease Case No.1062/1976.

Bharat Nayak Vs State and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.24903 of 2012

¶2

Bharat Nayak

¶3

….. Petitioner Mr. P.K. Mohanty-2, Advocate

¶4

Vs.

¶5

State of Odisha & Others

¶6

….. Opposite Parties Mr. L. Samantaray, AGA

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI

¶9

MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

ORDER

03.08.2023

Order No.

This matter is taken up by hybrid mode.

¶14

¶15

The order dated 27.08.1987 passed in Revision Case

¶16

No.359 of 1987 has been impugned in the present writ petition. The Petitioner was granted lease of land extending of Ac.1.000 dec in Plot No.461 under Khata No.320 of Mouza-Jagasara by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar in W.L.L. case No.1062/1976.

¶17

It is contended by the Petitioner that when he is in peaceful possession over the said plot of land having mutated the R.O.R. in his name and paid the rent regularly, the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar initiated suo motu Revisioin Case No.359 of 1987 for resumption of the land without any valid ground. On 27.08.1987 by a cryptic order, the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar cancelled the lease granted in favour of the petitioner in W.L. Lease Case No.1062/1976.

¶18

Having perused the impugned order under Annexure-2, it reveals that the order of cancellation of lease has been passed in purported exercise of jurisdiction under Section 7-A(3) of the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act, 1962. Though it is found in the impugned order that the inquiry report indicates mistake of

¶19

Page 1 of 2

¶20

fact, fraud, misrepresentation and material irregularity of procedure, but the same has not been found discussed in the order itself. The order of the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar is a short one.

¶21

Further perusal of the same shows that it has been passed in a mechanical way without assigning specific reasons. The only two grounds stated in the impugned order for cancellation of lease that no proper inquiry has been conducted by the Tahasildar and the proclamation inviting objections has not been properly served, are not found satisfactory compliance of law for cancellation after twelve years of grant of lease. It was incumbent upon the Revisional Authority to assign specific reasons of fraud or material irregularity.

¶22

Thus, in our opinion, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and accordingly, it is quashed.

¶23

The writ petition is allowed. There is no order as to costs.

¶24

(DR. B.R. SARANGI)
JUDGE
(M.S. RAMAN)
JUDGE

¶25

Laxmikant

¶26

Signature Not Verified

¶27

Digitally Signed Signed by: LAXMIKANT MOHAPATRA Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 03-Aug-2023 15:18:59

¶28

Page 2 of 2

Bharat Nayak v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharat Nayak 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

Pratap Kumar Mohanty Vs Prof.Dr.Prasanta Ku.

Bhubaneswear Thakur Vs Thomas M Cherian

Kandarpa Jani Vs State of Odisha

Khirod Ranjan Mohant Vs Chandra Sekhar Kumar

Lachamani Ada Vs State of Odisha

Bharat Nandi Vs State of Odisha