Fahemida Khanum @ Firdos Vs State of Odisha

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 12-Sep-2025 19:14:41

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶4

W.P.(C) No. 18180 OF 2025 …. Fahemida Khanum @ Firdos

¶5

…. Petitioner

¶6

Mr. Pradosh Kumar Das, Advocate along with Mr. Dipak Ranjan Mishra, Advocate

¶7

-versus-

¶8

1. State of Odisha 2. The Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar

¶9

…. Opp. Parties

¶10

3. The Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar

¶11

Mr. Siba Narayan Biswal, Additional Standing Counsel

¶12

CORAM:

¶13

JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO

ORDER

Order No.

12.09.2025

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶19

The Petitioner in this writ petition seeks to assail the order dated 23^rd July, 1987 (Annexure-3 series) passed by learned Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar in Lease Revision Case No.212 of 1986, whereby exercising power under Section 7-A(3) of the Odisha Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 (for brevity ‘the Act’), the lease granted in favour of one, Ramesh Chandra Jena, father of the Petitioner, was cancelled.

¶20

2.1 The Petitioner also assails the order dated 30^th January, 1989 (Annexure-3 series) passed by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar in W.L. Case No.948 of 1974, directing to correct the Record of Right (RoR)

¶21

Page 1 of 6

¶22

Signature Not Verified

¶23

Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 12-Sep-2025 19:14:41

¶24

in the name of the Government pursuant to the aforesaid order passed by learned Additional District Magistrate.

¶25

Mr. Das, learned counsel being authorized by Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the land pertaining to Plot No.1958 to an extent of Ac.1.000 decimals under Khata No.805 of Andharua Mouza in the district of Khordha was leased out in favour of one, Ramesh Chandra Jena in W.L. Case No.948 of 1974 for agricultural purpose. After the land was settled on lease, RoR was also prepared in his (lessee’s) name under Khata No.621/62 with By-plot No.1958/3170 (for brevity ‘the case land’). When the matter stood thus, the lessee expired and his widow, namely, Sunamani Jena stepped into his shoes. For legal necessity, she sold a portion of the case land, i.e., Ac.0.400 decimals to Guna Nayak, S/o- Madhab Nayak of village-Laxmisagar in the district of Puri (now Khordha) on 20^th April, 1981 by virtue of a Registered Sale Deed and delivered possession. Out of the said area, said Guna Nayak, alienated an area of Ac.0.150 decimals of land to Sakuntala Pradhan, W/o- Sudarshan Pradhan of Village Laxmisagar in the district of Khordha on 3^rd March, 1982 vide Registered Sale Deed No.2355/1982 for legal necessity. Subsequently, said Sakuntala Pradhan sold the land to the father of the Petitioner by virtue of a Registered Sale Deed No.6414/1982 dated 9^th June, 1982 and delivered possession to him. Since then, the father of the Petitioner along with his family members and after his death, the Petitioner is occupying the case land along with her family members exercising her right, title and interest thereon.

¶26

Page 2 of 6

¶27

Signature Not Verified

¶28

Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 12-Sep-2025 19:14:41

¶29

3.1. In the meantime, learned Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar initiated Lease Revision Case No.212 of 1986 under Section 7-A(3) of the Act and canceled the lease made in favour of Ramesh Chandra Jena. Although the father of the Petitioner and after him, the Petitioner is in possession over the land, but no notice, whatsoever, was served on either of them to defend the case. It is further submitted that due to non-service of notice in the suo motu Lease Revision Case No.212 of 1986, the Petitioner lost a valuable civil right without getting an opportunity to defend her right, title and interest thereon. Referring to the impugned order under Annexure-3 series, he submits that learned Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar has not made any enquiry with regard to actual possession over the case land. He also did not make any endeavour to call for a report from the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar in that regard. Although he has referred to the report of the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar, but the contents of the said report does not form part of the order. Thus, he submits that enquiry, if any, conducted before adjudication of Lease Revision Case No.212 of 1986, was perfunctory.

¶30

The Petitioner, being unaware of the initiation of the lease revision case and cancellation of the lease, was in dark and continued to enjoy the property. During his life time, the father of the Petitioner went to the office of the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar to mutate the case land in his name. But, it was refused on the ground that he was not in possession over the case land. Hence, he made an enquiry and got the certified copy of the impugned order on 7^th

¶31

Page 3 of 6

¶32

Signature Not Verified

¶33

Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 12-Sep-2025 19:14:41

¶34

March, 2008. Subsequently, the father of the Petitioner died. The Petitioner being unaware of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, could not take steps to assail the order before this Court. As such, there is some delay in filing the writ petition. Hence, Mr. Das, learned counsel for the Petitioner prays for setting aside the impugned order under Annexure-3 series and to remit the matter to learned Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar for adjudication of Lease Revision Case No.212 of 1986 afresh giving her an opportunity of hearing.

¶35

Mr. Biswal, learned Additional Standing Counsel submits that from Paragraph-9 of the writ petition, it is apparent that the father of the Petitioner got the certified copy of the impugned order on 7^th March, 2008. But, the writ petition was filed in the year, 2025. Thus, there is an inordinate delay in filing the writ petition. Further, bare perusal of the impugned order passed by learned Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar makes it clear that an enquiry was made by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar and it was ascertained that neither the original lessee nor anyone was in possession over the case land. The land was not being used for the purpose for which it was leased out in favour of the original lessee. Hence, there is no illegality in the impugned order under Annexure3 series. The writ petition also suffers from delay and latches. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶36

Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that the father of the Petitioner, Ramesh Chandra Jena, purchased the case land from his

¶37

Page 4 of 6

¶38

Signature Not Verified

¶39

Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 12-Sep-2025 19:14:41

¶40

vendor on 9^th June, 1982 by virtue of R.S.D No.6414/1982 and was delivered with the possession. It further appears that no notice was served on him. It further appears that the father of the Petitioner went to the office of the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar to get the land mutated in his name. But, his request was turned down on the ground that he was not in possession, as the lease was cancelled and the case land stand recorded in favour of the Government of Odisha. Accordingly, the father of the Petitioner obtained a certified copy of the impugned order on 7^th March, 2008. He also collected relevant documents to assail the said order. But, it is stated that the father of the Petitioner died before he could take any step to challenge the order of cancellation of lease. The Petitioner could not take any immediate step, as she was unaware of the aforesaid events/orders.

¶41

In the facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly, when the father of the Petitioner had purchased the case land before the impugned order dated 23^rd July, 1987 was passed in Lease Revision Case No.212 of 1986 and the Petitioner claims to be in possession over the land purchased by her father, she should be given an opportunity of hearing in Lease Revision Case No.212 of 1986.

¶42

Accordingly, this Court sets aside the order dated 23^rd July, 1987 under Annexure-3 series passed by learned Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar in Lease Revision Case No.212 of 1986 and consequential order dated 30^th January, 1989 passed by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar in W.L. Case No.948 of 1974. The matter is remitted to learned Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar

¶43

Page 5 of 6

¶44

Signature Not Verified

¶45

Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 12-Sep-2025 19:14:41

¶46

for fresh adjudication of Lease Revision Case No.212 of 1986 providing opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned along with the Petitioner. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case of the Petitioner in the aforesaid lease revision case.

¶47

Since the lease revision case is of the year, 1986, learned Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar should make an endeavour for early disposal of the same. The Petitioner is also directed to cooperate with learned Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar for early disposal of Lease Revision Case No.212 of 1986.

¶48