Chittaranjan Das 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: 22-Sep-2025 11:51:17

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶4

W.P.(C) No. 4073 OF 2017

¶5

(An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India)

¶6

¶7

1. Chittaranjan Das

¶8

2. Satyaranjan Das

¶9

…… Petitioners

¶10

-Versus-

¶11

1. State of Odisha

¶12

2. Sub-Collector, Bhubaneswar 3. Addl. District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar

¶13

4. Tahasildar, Jatani

¶14

5. General Administrative Department, represented through its Secretary, G.A Department, Bhubaneswar

¶15

.…… Opp. Parties

¶16

Advocates appeared:

¶17

For Petitioners : Mr. Sanatan Das, Advocate

¶18

For Opp. Parties : Mr. Manmaya Kumar Dash, Additional Standing Counsel

¶19

CORAM :

¶20

MR. JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO

¶21

-----------------------------------------------Heard and disposed of on 19.09.2025

¶22

----------------------------------------------

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

By the Bench;

¶25

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶26

W.P.(C) No. 4073 OF 2017 Page 1 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: 22-Sep-2025 11:51:17

¶29

// 2 //

¶30

2. The Petitioners in this writ petition seek to assail the order dated 9^th March, 1983 (Annexure-1) passed by learned Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar in Lease Revision Case No.222 of 1982, wherein the lease granted in favour of mother of the Petitioners, namely, Basanti Lata Das, has been cancelled and it was directed to take possession of the leasehold property from the mother of the Petitioners.

¶31

3. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the mother of the Petitioners being the landless person, was settled with the Plot No.597/1447 under Khata No.255/217 (Sabik Plot No.597 under Sabik Khata No.359) to an extent of Ac.0.100 decimals situated in Ogalpada Mouza in the district of Khurda (for brevity ‘the case land’) vide order dated 16^th March, 1981 passed by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar in W.L. Case No.163 of 1981. Subsequently, suo motu Lease Revision Case No.222 of 1982 was initiated by learned Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar under Section 7-A(3) of the Odisha Government Land Settlement Act, 1962. Without providing adequate opportunity to the mother of the Petitioners, the lease was cancelled vide order under Annexure-1 on the ground that the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar had not enquired about the financial status of the mother of the Petitioners and the case land was reserved for communal development purpose. Ignoring the same, the lease was granted in favour of the mother of the Petitioners. It is also observed that the mother of the Petitioners, in spite of

¶32

W.P.(C) No. 4073 OF 2017 Page 2 of 6

¶33

Signature Not Verified

¶34

Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Sep-2025 11:51:17

¶35

// 3 //

¶36

receipt of notice, did not prefer to file any objection to the show cause notice. Although the impugned order was passed on 9^th March, 1983, but, it was never communicated either to the mother of the Petitioners during her life time or to the Petitioners. The Petitioners came to know about the impugned order from the locality and Petitioner No.1 applied for the certified copy of the same, which was made available to them on 7^th September, 2016, wherefrom they were confirmed that the lease granted in favour of their mother has been cancelled. Accordingly, they obtained the relevant records on 20^th January, 2017 and filed the present writ petition. It is also submitted that the Petitioners are still in possession over the case land and residing thereon by constructing their residential house. Hence, Mr. Das, learned counsel for the Petitioners prays for setting aside the impugned order under Annexure-1 and to remit the matter to learned Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar for fresh adjudication of Lease Revision Case No.222 of 1982 giving them an opportunity of hearing.

¶37

4. Mr. Dash, learned Additional Standing Counsel vehemently objects to the submission made by learned counsel for the Petitioners. It is his submission that the mother of the Petitioners by misrepresenting the required materials had obtained the lease in her favour. The mother of the Petitioners was served with the notice of Lease Revision Case No.222 of 1982 on 24^th July, 1982 and she appeared

¶38

W.P.(C) No. 4073 OF 2017 Page 3 of 6

¶39

Signature Not Verified

¶40

Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Sep-2025 11:51:17

¶41

// 4 //

¶42

before learned Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar through an Advocate. Although learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioners appeared on 5^th August, 1982, 16^th September, 1982, 11^th November, 1982, 3^rd December, 1982 and 20^th January, 1983, but preferred to remain absent thereafter. No objection to the lease revision case was also filed by the mother of the Petitioners. Thus, ample opportunity was given to the mother of the Petitioners to defend her case before learned Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar. On perusal of the case record, learned Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar came to a categorical conclusion that the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar had not made any enquiry with regard to income of the mother of the Petitioners while recommending settlement of the case land with her. It was also overlooked by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar that the land was reserved for community development purpose. Thus, the case land could not have been leased out in favour of the mother of the Petitioners. He further submitted that the writ petition has been filed 34 years after cancellation of the lease vide order under Annexure-1. Thus, the writ petition is hopelessly barred by limitation. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶43

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the materials available on record.

¶44

6. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the Opposite Party

¶45

W.P.(C) No. 4073 OF 2017 Page 4 of 6

¶46

Signature Not Verified

¶47

Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Sep-2025 11:51:17

¶48

// 5 //

¶49

No.3-learned Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar, it appears that the mother of the Petitioners, against whom the suo motu Lease Revision Case No.222 of 1982 was initiated, had participated in the said proceeding by engaging a lawyer. But, the order sheet of the lease revision case is not available on record to test the veracity of such averment in the counter affidavit. It further appears that the mother of the Petitioners died on 6^th October, 1997 and learned counsel for the Petitioners emphatically submitted that the Petitioners are still in possession of the case land and residing thereon by constructing their residential house. The Petitioners allege that opportunity of hearing was not given to them before learned Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar in Lease Revision Case No.222 of 1982.

¶50

7. Thus, in all fairness, this Court feels that the Petitioners should be given another opportunity of hearing before learned Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar.

¶51

8. Accordingly, the impugned order under Annexure-1 is set aside and the matter is remitted to learned Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar for fresh adjudication of Lease Revision Case No.222 of 1982 in accordance with law providing opportunity of hearing to the parties likely to be affected including the Petitioners. In order to avoid further delay, the Petitioners shall appear before learned Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar on 14^th October, 2025 along

¶52

W.P.(C) No. 4073 OF 2017 Page 5 of 6

¶53

Signature Not Verified

¶54

Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Sep-2025 11:51:17

¶55

// 6 //

¶56

with certified copy of this order to receive further instruction in the matter.

¶57

9. It is made clear that no encumbrance/3^rd party interest shall be created in respect of the case land by either of the parties till disposal of Lease Revision Case No.222 of 1982 afresh.

¶58

10. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶59

Urgent certified copy of this judgment be granted on proper application.

¶60

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

¶61

(Savitri Ratho) Judge

¶62

Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated 19^th September, 2025/Madhusmita

¶63

W.P.(C) No. 4073 OF 2017 Page 6 of 6

Chittaranjan Das v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chittaranjan Das v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prafulla Kumar Nanda Vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar

Karunakar Parabhoi Vs State of Odisha

Poshram Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Nilamani Panda Vs Collector, Bargarh

Bijaya Kumar Padhan Vs State of Odisha

The General Secretary, Keonjhar Mines and Forest Workers Union Vs the Sr.Vice-President, Essel Mining and Industries Ltd.