JUDGMENT

Dr. B.R. SARANGI, J. - The petitioner, a retired Government servant, has filed this application challenging the inaction of the authority in not delivering the possession of homestead leasehold land in his favour, though lease had been granted vide Lease Case No.88 of 1964 by the then Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Northern Division, Sambalpur under Urban Land Settlement Act.

2. The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that the petitioner is a land less person inasmuch as his entire landed property, including house and homestead, had been acquired for construction of NALCO project. Consequentially, after retirement, he was staying in a rented house at Angul. A piece of land measuring Ac.0.12 decimals out of plots no.309/2 and 310/2 (2 decimals from plot no.309/2 and 10 decimals from plot no.310/2) in Angul town was sanctioned on lease basis for homestead purpose in favour of the petitioner by the then Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Northern Division, Sambalpur vide Angul Town Lease Case No.88 of 1964. After getting notice from the competent authority on the sanction of the lease, the petitioner deposited the premium amount and thereafter the lease deed was executed and registered. The said lease deed is nomenclatureed as “Standard Form of lease deed for lease of government land in favour of Middle Class People in town areas in the State of Orissa”. The lease deed was executed on 18.07.1974 and after execution of lease deed, the petitioner applied and requested the Tahasildar, Angul to demarcate the plot and give physical delivery of possession of the said plot to him. At that point of time, the petitioner was informed that the said land is under encroachment and after evicting the encroachers, delivery of possession would be made in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner waited till 1983 for taking over possession of the plot from the revenue authorities, but no action was taken by the authority to give delivery of possession of the land in question in favour of the petitioner.

3. In the year 1983, the Land Acquisition Collector, Dhenkanal acquired the entire landed properties of the petitioner both agricultural, homestead and house etc. for NALCO project at Angul. Thereafter, the petitioner on 24.05.1984, submitted a representation before the Collector, Dhenkanal stating inter alia that if his lease hold land is in encroachment, another suitable plot measuring Ac.0.12 decimals within Angul NAC be allotted to him for construction of a house, but no action was taken by him on the same. The revenue authorities also did not take any action till 1985 for eviction of the encroachers from the plot in question, even though an eviction order was passed against the encroachers in the year 1974 vide Encroachment Case No.127 of 1970-71. In spite of said order being subsisting, a fresh encroachment case against the said encroachers was initiated vide Encroachment Case No.1 of 1985 under Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment, Act (for short “OPLE, Act”). But the revenue authorities did not take any steps for removal of the encroachers from the said leasehold land. On enquiry, the petitioner came to know that one Sri Dasarathi Pattnaik was the encroacher of his leasehold land. Further, Sri Dasarathi Pattnaik was granted lease in respect of Ac.0.12 decimals of land out of plot no.309 in the year 1970-71. After receiving the said land from the government on lease, Sri Dasarathi Pattnaik constructed his dwelling house there and subsequently encroached the adjacent plots out of plots no.309 and 310 granted on lease in favour of the petitioner. After coming to know the fact that Encroachment Case No.1 of 1985 has been initiated against the encroacher, the petitioner intervened in the same and filed objection stating inter alia that the encroached land has been sanctioned in his favour, vide Angul Town Lease Case No.88 of 1964.

4. During pendency of the said encroachment case, the encroacher Sri Dasarathi Pattnaik and his d