The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for subjective satisfaction by the Sub-Divisional Officer under Section 8-A(3) of the O.P.L.E. Act for settlement of land in cases of encroachment for more than thirty years.

JUDGMENT :

Biswanath Rath, J.

This writ petition is directed against the impugned order under Annexure-5 passed by the A.D.M., Koraput in exercise of power under the O.P.L.E. Act.

2. Short background involved in the case is that two Encroachment Cases bearing Nos.147/72 and 1/73 were initiated against Gopinath Pallo and Radhamohan Pallo for encroachment of land measuring an area Ac.0.520 decimals out of Ac.2.350 decimals, Khata No.234 and Ac.1.670 decimals out of Plot No.237. On enquiry it was found that there was no encroachment over Plot No.234. Accordingly, Encroachment Case No.147/72 was dropped and the other Encroachment Case was allowed to continue.

The petitioner’s case rested on purchase of property by his adopted father by Registered Sale Deed No.4/1921 from one Nilakantha Sahoo, who had purchased the same from one Gopinath Pujari on 28.4.1919. It is claimed that for absence of his father at the time of survey, the land was wrongly recorded in favour of the Government. In the settlement proceeding, the petitioner claimed for settlement of the land in his favour. The Tahasildar after final hearing of the matter concluded that the land is a rayati land and not the Government land in O.P.L.E. Case No.1/73. In the year 1988, the Tahasildar again passed an order that on verification of records and the original documents produced by the respective parties, the Photostat copies were found to be correct. Ultimately, the Tahasildar dropped the Encroachment Case No.147/72 under the premises that he has no power to review the impugned order already passed by his predecessor and he forwarded the proceeding to the S.D.O. for consideration under Section 8-A of the O.P.L.E. Act. The Sub-Collector, Jeypore upon notice to the petitioner and the Tahasildar, Jeypore, concluded the matter finally after verifying the documents and found a case of long possession besides the support of a sale deed of 1921 in favour of the predecessor and thus directed for settlement of the land in favour of the petitioner and fixing the rent, as appearing at Annexure-4 series.

Being aggrieved, the Tahasildar preferred a Revision and final order was passed by the revisional authority directing remand of the matter in the Revision.

The petitioner filed the present writ petition on the premises that even though the order in the Appeal was passed on 1.8.1991, the Revision was preferred in 1994, which was almost 3 years after and the Revision having not accompanied a delay condonation application was not maintainable.

Secondly, the Revision was also not maintainable, as it was preferred by the Tahasildar and further the observations made by the revisional authority that the Appeal has been decided in absence of any enquiry, as contemplated under Section 8 of the O.P.L.E. Act., is erroneous.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision of this Court in Gulam Sarwar vrs. State of Orissa and others reported in 2011 (II) OLR-903 to support his stand that no revision at the instance of Tahasildar is maintainable.

4. Sri Sahu, learned Additional Standing Counsel, on the other hand, seriously objecting the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the Revision being entertained and decided finally, the question of limitation could not be gone into again. Further coming to the question finding in the Revision by the Tahasildar, Sri Sahu submitted that following the provision of Section 12 of the O.P.L.E. Act, particularly Section 12(2) of the Act, there is provision for entertaining a Revision and the property since claimed to be belonging to the State and further the Tahasildar since was contesting in the appeal, he had rightly filed the revision and the Collector is empowered to revise such decision.

Coming to challenge to the direction for remand, Sri Sahu, learned Additional Standing Counsel, contended that for the observations made therein and as the Revisional Authority found the orders passed in absence of any enquiry in th