The main legal point established is the requirement to consider all relevant aspects, including subsequent land acquisition and registration dates, before issuing a demand notice under Rule 12-A(3) of the O.L.R. (General) Rules, 1965.

JUDGMENT :

BISWANATH RATH, J.

1. Filing this writ petition, the petitioners have assailed Anenxure-3, a notice of demand under Form No. 28 in exercise of power under Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 12-A of the O.L.R. (General) Rules, 1965 thereby making a demand of Rs.5,21,501.50 towards conversion premium for an extent of land Ac.160.462 acquired for the purpose of acqua farming by the petitioners.

2. Assailing the impugned notice, Sri Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, contended that the proceeding as appears from Anenxure-3 was initiated in 1994 and the provision applied therein under Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 12-A of the O.L.R. (General) Rules, 1965 came into operation on 29.11.1997 and application of the provision to the case instituted in 1994 is bad. The second limb of submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that though the premium has been charged in respect of an extent of land Ac.160.462 under the premises of acquired land prior to the first date of July, 1994, but in fact, a larger portion of the acquired land was acquired by the petitioners’ farm at subsequent dates, as detailed in Annexure-2. The impugned notice in absence of consideration of the above aspect makes it bad. Further since a demand by way of premium has been made concerning the land in the guise of particular Rules under the O.L.R. Act, at least an opportunity of satisfying the case should have been given to the petitioners. Sri Das, learned counsel for the petitioners, under these circumstances, contended that the impugned notice becomes bad and should be interfered with and set aside.

3. Sri Dash, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the opposite parties, on the other hand, though did not dispute the claim of natural justice by the petitioners, but looking to the indication made in Annexure-3, submitted that there appears, there is no error in the demand leaving any scope for interfering with the same.

4. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds, there has been no dispute that the demand under Annexure-3 has been made applying the principle of Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 12-A of the O.L.R. (General) Rules, 1965, which provision reads as follows:-

“12-A.(3) – In cases where the conversion has already taken place prior to the 1st day of July, 1994, the authorized officer shall issue a notice in Form No. 28 to the raiyat or the person to whom the land has been transferred by the raiyat asking him to pay the premium and land revenue and after the payment of premium and land revenue, the land shall be settled on lease basis under the provisions of the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act, 1962.”

Further looking to the provision in the statute, this Court finds, the provision of Rule 12-A of the O.L.R. (General) Rules, 1965 is clearly inserted in the statute, vide S.R.O. No. 776/97, Notification No. 28165-Re-55/96, dated 29.11.1997. Therefore, it appears, such a provision was not available at the time of initiation of the proceeding, vide O.L.R. Case No. 1/94.

Be that as it may, looking to the date of issuing the demand under Form No. 28 to be 10.9.1998, on which date this Court finds the provision had already come into effect and looking to Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 12-A of the O.L.R. (General) Rules, 1965, this Court finds, the Rule has been made applicable to all cases of conversion prior to the first date of July, 1994.

5. It is at this stage, Sri Das, learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that the petitioners’ farm got its registration vide Registration No. 150600043 issued on 24.6.1999 and therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the rule had no application to the present case.

6. Considering the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners’ farm was registered only on 24.6.1999, there arises a doubt in the application of Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 12-A of the O.L.R. (General Rules), 1965 to the present case and there appears, there is no consideration of this aspect wh