JUDGMENT

B. P. DAS, J. — The petitioner had filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution with the following prayers :

(i) to quash the proceeding initiated in Resumption Case No. 2 of 1993 in respect of the disputed Khasmahal leasehold land pending before the Collector, Puri;

(ii) to quash the order of the Member, Board of Revenue under Annexure-5, sanctioning the resumption; and

(iii) to direct opposite parties 2 and 3 to settle the said land permanently with the petitioner and his brothers, opposite parties 5 and 6, with heritable and transferable rights in terms of Section 3(4) (c) of the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act, 1962.

2. The brief facts leading to this writ application as delineated tent to reveal that the petitioner’s father Raja Sailendra Narayan Bhanja Deo was the lessee in occupation of the case land in Mouza Bankimuhan (Unit No. 26), Tahasil - Puri Sadar under a Khasmahal Lease, the extent of which was Ac. 1.566. The said lease was subsisting on 19.7.1982, when the petitioner’s father - Raja Sailendra Narayan Bhanja Deo died. After the death of the petitioner’s father, opposite party No. 4, the mother of the petitioner, and opposite parties 5 and 6, his brothers re¬mained in possession of the case land having succeeded to the interest of the petitioner’s deceased father. According to the petitioner, his father built a huge building upon the case land and after using it for residential purpose for some years had let it out to the Deputy Accountant General, Government of India which was used as office and residential purpose. The said tenant continued to occupy the premises even till the date of filing of the writ application and was paying rent. The said premises have been assessed to Municipal Holding Tax in the name of petition¬er’s father and a holding number has been assigned to the said premises by the Puri Municipality. The petitioner has been paying the holding tax. The current record-of rights has been published in the name of the petitioner’s deceased father and rent has been paid up-to-date. The petitioner and opposite parties 4, 5 and 6 before expiry of the lease filed an application for renewal of the same, which was registered as Lease Case No. 21 of 1996 and is pending before the Tahasildar, Sadar, Puri. According to the petitioner, while the renewal application of the petitioner was pending, opposite party No. 2- the Collector, Puri initiated Resumption Case No. 2 of 1993 and the orders passe therein, copy of which is annexed as Annexure-2, indicate that the lease ex¬pired on 8.6.1977 and as no steps were taken for renewal of the same, a show cause was issued as to why the said lease-hold land would not be resumed by the Government and utilized for public purposes. The order sheet dated 15.7.1998 of the Collector indi¬cates that the matter was referred to the Member, Board of Reve¬nue, seeking sanction of resumption of the lands involved in present Resumption Case No. 2 of 1993 as well as Resumption Case No. 3 of 1993 and 4 of 1993. The petitioner filed his show cause in the aforesaid case. The order dated 15.7.1998 shows that the matter was referred to the Member, Board of Revenue, simply re¬jecting the show cause of the petitioner without any reason and without even giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Ultimately, the Member, Board of Revenue passed the order in Annexure-5 according sanction to proceed with resumption of the said land.

3. The aforesaid order (Annexure-5) is challenged on the ground that the Khasmahal leasehold land is heritable and trans¬ferable. The order passed by the Collector does not contain anything to show that the land is required for public purpose. The order dated 15.7.1998 passed by the Collector in Annexure-2 has been passed without due application of mind and without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The order in Annexure-5 passed by the Board of Revenue, Orissa according sanction to proceed with the re