Back
2019 Supreme(Ori) 324
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Sanju Panda, S.K. Sahoo, JJ.
Subala Tarai - Appellant
Vs.
Collector, Puri And Others - Respondents
Original Jurisdication Case No. 16823 of 2001, 16824 of 2001
Decided On : 06-02-2019
Kali Prasanna Misra, Adv., J.K. Khandayatray, Adv., S. Dash, Adv., Kishore Kumar Misra, Adv.
The exercise of revisional power must be within a reasonable period, especially in cases of fraud, and the notice provided should offer a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the affected parties.
Headnote:
O.G.L.S. Act - Land Lease Cancellation - S.7-A(3)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to quash the order cancelling their land leases under the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 (O.G.L.S. Act). They argued that the cancellation violated their fundamental rights and was barred by the law of limitation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the revision proceedings were not time-barred as fraud was committed at the time of obtaining the lease, and the exercise of revisional power was within a reasonable period from the discovery of fraud. The court also held that the petitioners were provided with a reasonable opportunity of hearing in the revision proceedings.
Issues: (a) Whether power of revision was exercised beyond the prescribed period of limitation? (b) Whether reasonable opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioners in the revision proceedings? (c) Whether the impugned order is legally sustainable?
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles of limitation under the Limitation Act, 1963 and held that the exercise of revisional power must be within a reasonable period, especially in cases of fraud. It also emphasized that the notice provided a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ applications, upholding the cancellation of the land leases under the O.G.L.S. Act.
JUDGMENT :
S.K. Sahoo, J.
The petitioner Subala Tarai in O.J.C. No. 16823 of 2001 and the petitioner Diriba Swain in O.J.C. No. 16824 of 2001 have prayed to quash the impugned common order dated 01.10.2001 of the Addl. District Magistrate, Puri passed in O.G.L.S. Revision No.92 of 1999 and O.G.L.S. Revision No.113 of 1989 respectively invoking power under section 7-A(3) of the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 (hereafter 'O.G.L.S. Act') in cancelling the leases sanctioned in favour of the petitioners by the Tahasildar, Puri.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that they were landless persons and belonged to scheduled caste community. The forefathers of the petitioners were in possession of Government land for last sixty to seventy years. The Tahasildar, Puri (opposite party no.3) with the aid of his staff verified the eligibility of the petitioners for grant of lease of the land in the year 1974 in Lease Case No.5465 of 1974 and Lease Case No.5462 of 1974. It was duly proclaimed by beat of drum and the local Gram Panchayat was also consulted. Public objection was invited by the Tahasildar but there was no objection from any quarter whatsoever. Consequently in the year 1975-76, Ac. 02.00 dec. of land in Mouza-Jagadal, P.S.-Brahmagiri, TahasilPuri Sadar, Dist.-Puri was settled in favour of each of the petitioners by the Tahasildar which were subsequently recorded in the names of the petitioners through mutation by the Tahasildar.
It is the further case of the petitioners that at the behest of some of the staff of the office of the Tahasildar (opposite party no.3), the Addl. District Magistrate (opposite party no.2) issued show cause notices to the petitioners by initiating lease revision cases bearing O.G.L.S. Revision No.92 of 1999 and O.G.L.S. Revision No.113 of 1989 under section 7-A(3) of the O.G.L.S. Act. No specific reason was assigned in the show cause notices regarding the initiation of the revision cases. The petitioners submitted their written notes of objection in the said lease revision cases and pleaded that invoking of provision under sub-section (3) of section 7-A of the O.G.L.S. Act after expiry of fourteen years from the date of grant of lease is hopelessly barred by law of limitation. The notices were in cyclostyled format, vague and it did not disclose the reasons/grounds which necessitated to the authority to initiate such proceeding. The opp. party no.2 without proper application of mind and in a preconceived and predetermined manner, cancelled the leases already granted in favour of the petitioners.
3. Mr. Kali Prasanna Misra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the grounds taken by the Addl. District Magistrate, Puri in cancelling the leases are based on no materials and no reasonable opportunity of hearing as provided under the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 7-A of 1962 Act was granted and on surmise and suspicion, the opposite party no.2 has passed the impugned order. The notices were defective and the petitioners were kept in darkness about the nature of the proceedings and they were not supplied with the relevant documents which have resulted in causing serious prejudice to the petitioners. According to Mr. Misra, it is stipulated in the second proviso to sub-section (3) of section 7-A of the O.G.L.S. Act that no proceeding under this sub-section shall be initiated after the expiry of fourteen years from the date of the order passed by the subordinate authority and therefore, the initiation of the revision proceeding in the year 1999 is illegal. It is contended that since the impugned order violates the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 so also Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, it should be quashed. Mr. Kishore Kumar Misra, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate refuting the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners on the other hand supported the impugned order and contended that after receipt of the notices, the petitioners engag
