Compliance with the principles of natural justice and the limitation period under Section 7-A(3) of the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 is crucial for the validity of lease revision proceedings.

JUDGMENT

B.K.MISRA

This is the second round journey of the present petitioner in challenging the order of the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar in Lease Revision Case No. 422 of 1998 dated 30.5.2011 (Annexure-8) wherein the Addl. District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar set aside the settlement of the case land in favour of one Digambar Behera in W.L. Lease Case No. 2036 of 1973.

2. The case of the petitioner is that one Digambar Behera was granted lease of Ac. 0.500 decimals of land appertaining to Hal Plot No. 266/1044/1132 under Hal Khata No. 239/35 corresponding to Sabik Plot No. 1044 under Sabik Khata No. 281 in Mouza-Giringaput by the Government after considering all the statutory formalities. A lease deed was executed in the year 1974. The original lessee, namely, Digambar Behera transferred the said Ac.0.500 decimals of land to one Trilochan Behera after obtaining permission from the Revenue Officer, Bhubaneswar transferred the case land measuring Ac.0.500 decimals to one Rama Krushna Parida on 18.10.1985. It is the further case of the petitioner that thereafter the said Rama Krushna Parida transferred the case land which he purchased from Trilochan Behera in favour of the present petitioner. The petitioner alleges that on 29.4.1998 i.e. almost after 13 years of his purchasing the case land the Addl. District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar namely, the present opposite party No.1 initiated a Sou Motu Revision Case under Section 7-A(3) of the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 and after examining, the lower court record set aside the settlement of the case land by his order dated 29.4.1998 and directed the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar to cancel the lease granted by the State Government in favour of Digarmbar Behera and to correct the records and take over possession of the land in question. This order of the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar was challenged by the present petitioner before this Court in W.P(C)No.13765 of 2008 and this Court while setting aside the order of settlement of the Revisional Authority directed the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar to dispose of the case afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and also to consider the question of limitation. It is the further case of the petitioner that she appeared before the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar and after hearing the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar passed the impugned order at Annexure-8.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the Revenue Authority cancelled the lease granted in favour of Digambar Behera without issuing any show cause notice indicating the grounds for cancellation of the lease granted to him and the petitioner had also no knowledge of such cancellation of lease and though he is entitled to a show cause notice, no notice was issued to him and therefore, the impugned order smacks transparency and there has been gross violation of the principles of natural justice. It was also equally argued that Suo Motu Revision Proceeding initiated by the Additional District Magistrate, Bhuabaneswar i.e. after long lapse of 25 years is without any jurisdiction and the reasoning assigned are totally fallacious and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Thus, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order should be quashed.

4. The opposite party No.1 files his counter affidavit denying all the allegations of the petitioner and while praying for dismissal of the writ petition it has been specifically averred that Digambar Behera the original lessee is neither a member of the Scheduled caste or Scheduled Tribe community but he availed the benefit under Section 3(2) of the O.G.L.S. Act, 1962 by impersonating him as a member belonging to the Scheduled Tribe community with an ulterior motive to grab the said land accordingly when such a fact came to the notice of the Revisional Authority, a Sou Motu Revision was initiated which was in a