JUDGMENT

B.K. PATEL, J. — The petitioners in this writ application have made prayer to quash the order dated 13.8.1987 under Annex¬ure-4 passed by opposite party no.2, the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar in R.C. No.220 of 1987 and to direct opposite party no.3, the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar to accept the arrear revenue in respect of disputed parcels of land from the petitioners and to mutate the same in their favour.

2. Order under Annexure-4 was passed by the learned Addi¬tional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar in exercise of power under Section 7-A(3) of the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act,1962 (for short ‘the Act’) cancelling the lease granted by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar in favour of opposite party no.5, Netra¬nanda Deuli in respect of land measuring Acs. 2.000 in plot no. 778 under Khata no. 207 in mouza Sundarpur by order dated 18.9.1974 in W.L. Lease Case No.1626 of 1974. It is the case of the petitioners that the original lessee being in requirement of funds, after necessary permission accorded under Section 22(1)(b)(4) of Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 in Revenue Misc. Case No.234 of 1984, transferred the entire lease hold land and delivered possession thereof to opposite party no.6, Batakrushna Parida vide Registered Sale Deed No.9272 dated 25.10.1985. Oppo¬site party no. 6 got the land mutated in his name vide order dated 25.2.1994 passed in Mutation Case No. 483 of 1994 under Annexure-1. Subsequently, opposite party no. 6 transferred dis¬puted parcels of land to the petitioners under the four regis¬tered sale deeds dated 3.3.1998 under Annexure-2 series. The petitioners are continuing with peaceful possession over the lands sold to them, but they could not get the lands mutated in their names due to revival of survey and settlement operation in the area as per notification of the State Government dated 22.10.2005 under Annexure-3, which had the effect of ouster of jurisdiction of the Tahasildar to effect mutation. Instead, the petitioners took steps in the office of opposite party no.4, Asst. Settlement Officer Bhubaneswar for mutation of the lands in their names and came to know regarding cancellation of lease under Annexure-4. Since opposite party no.3 had allowed mutation of the lease hold land in favour of opposite party no.6 in the year 1994, without disclosing about cancellation of lease in the absence of opposite party no.6, after obtaining copies of neces¬sary documents the petitioners filed the writ application.

3. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that as no notice of the cancellation proceeding in R.C. No.220 of 1987 was issued to opposite party no.6, the petitioner’s ven¬dor, who was the affected person at the time of cancellation of lease, there has been violation of mandatory provision under Section 7-A(3) of the Act. It was further submitted that order of cancellation under Annexure-4 reveals that the main ground for cancellation of the lease was alleged non-compliance of provi¬sions under Sub-Rules (3) and (5) of Rule 3 of Orissa Government Land Settlement Rules, 1974 by the learned Tahasildar while con¬ducting enquiry for the purpose of grant of lease. It was con¬tended that lease in question was granted on 18.9.1974 when Orissa Government Land Settlement Rules, 1963 were in force. Orissa Government Land Settlement Rules, 1963 were repealed by the Orissa Government Land Settlement Rules, 1974 brought into force w.e.f. 11.12.1974. Therefore, the lease could not have been declared invalid on the ground of non-compliance of provisions under Orissa Government Land Settlement Rules, 1974.

In support of his contentions learned counsel for the peti¬tioners relied upon a recent decision of this Court passed in W.P.(C) No.19517 of 2008 in the case of Sri Nrusingh Sahoo and another -vrs.- State of Orissa and others as well as two other reported decisions of this Court in Madhuchhanda Das -vrs.- State of Orissa and others : 1998 (II) OLR 36 and in Smt. Bidyut Mishra -vrs