JUDGMENT

BISWANATH RATH, J. - Both the writ petitions involve a challenge to the order passed by the Revisional Authority in OLR Revision Case Nos.236 of 1984 and 239 of 1984 by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, Orissa disposed of in the common impugned order passed in exercise of power under Section 59(2) of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960.

2. A common order was passed by the Revisional Authority involving both the aforesaid Revisions for the reason not only having common facts but also the question to be determined being similar in both the applications though involved two patches of land under two Tahasils.

3. At the beginning of the argument, Shri A.K. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the opposite parties-State raising the question of maintainability of the writ petition for involvement of the locus standi of the petitioners in filing the aforesaid writ petitions, contended that looking to the factual disclosures and the parties involved in the proceedings bearing OLR Revision Case Nos.236 and 239 of 1984, both the petitioners have no locus standi to come up in the present writ petitions and consequently referring to several documents appended herein to establish the allegation on locus standi involving petitioners, more particularly, Shri Mishra, learned Addl. Government Advocate justifying his submission prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions on the ground of petitioners having no locus standi to file the writ petitions. Shri Mishra, learned Addl. Government Advocate referring to petitioner no.1 submitted that so far petitioner no.1 is concerned since the petitioner no.1 has filed the writ petitions in his personal capacity, the writ petition cannot be treated to be one by the Trust. Shri Mishra, learned Addl. Government Advocate taking this Court also to the materials available on record, submitted that there is in fact no trust involving the dispute property created in accordance with law. The documents involved herein indicating the properties to be managed by trustees is mere use of term in absence of a duly constituted Trust leaving the trustees have a very very limited role.

4. For involvement of the dispute on the maintainability of the writ petition, this Court before entering into the merit involving the cases proceed to decide the maintainability of the writ as a first step.

5. Shri S.D. Das, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in his counter to the claim of the learned Addl. Government Advocate referring to the position of the petitioners and also taking this Court to the development in the writ petitions by way of Misc. Case Nos.229 of 2008 and 230 of 2008, further referring to the pleadings in the Misc. Cases indicated hereinabove and the documents appended therein in both the writ petitions, contended that not only the petitioner no.1 in the original stage of the writ but on his death the petitioner no.2 has the locus standi to prosecute the present litigation.

6. Hearing the rival contentions and looking to the cause title involving the OLR Revision Nos.236 of 1984 and 239 of 1984, this Court finds, admittedly parties to the Revision are the Collector, Mayurbhanj as petitioner and Sir Daniel Hamilton Trust Estate represented through Sri Subodh Kumar Bose being trustee as opposite party. Petitioner no.2 is added pursuant to filing of an application for substitution of petitioner no.2 on the death of Subodh Kumar Bose vide Misc. Case Nos.229 of 2008 and 230 of 2008 involving death of Subodh Kumar Bose on 07.08.1995, but considered by this Court in its proceeding dated 26.07.2017 involving both the writ petitions.

7. Facts as revealed involving the lease of the disputed property by the Ruler of Mayurbhanj Estate and Sir Daniel MacKinnon Hamilton vide registered Deed No.1333 dated 13.03.1935. The lease deed appearing at Annexure-1 contains the following :-

Lessor agrees to let and the lessee agrees to take all that tenement and all rights easement