The detection of fraud and material irregularities in the lease settlement process, and the fair and justified action taken by the authority in promptly cancelling the leases.

ORDER

R.K. Pattanaik, J. - Instant writ petitions under Article(s) 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 have been filed by the Petitioner assailing the legality and judicial propriety of the impugned order dated 9th May, 2011 (Annexure-3) passed in Lease Revision Case Nos.538, 553, 554, 563, 564, 565, 566 and 567 of 1998 by the learned Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar (OP No.2), who cancelled the leases granted in favour of the original lessees vis-a-vis the lands subsequently transferred in her favour on the grounds inter alia that it is bad in law and therefore, liable to be set aside.

2. Since the parties are same and common question of law is involved, all the writ petitions have been clubbed together for disposal by the following common order.

3. In above the cases, the leases were granted under the provisions of the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 (here-in-after referred to as 'the OGLS Act') vide W.L. Case Nos.562, 577, 578, 587, 588, 589, 590 and 591 of 1975. The Petitioner appears to have purchased the leasehold lands either from the lessees or from their vendees and claimed to be in possession of the same ever since the respective purchases made and also mutated her name in the revenue records. In the meantime, suo motu revision proceedings were initiated under Section 7-A(3) of the OGLS Act and the leases in question were cancelled by order dated 30th June 1998. As revealed from the record, the Petitioner, thereafter, challenged the orders of cancellation by approaching this Court in W.P.(C) Nos.2895, 3291, 3293, 3297, 2893, 3292, 3296 and 3295 of 2003 which were disposed of orders under Annexure-2. In the aforesaid cases, this Court set aside the cancellation of leases and directed OP No.2 to provide hearing to the Petitioner in compliance of 1st proviso to Section 7-A(3) of the OGLS Act. Accordingly, the revision proceedings were restored to file and the Petitioner was provided an opportunity by OP No.2. Finally, by a common order under Annexure-3, OP No.2 cancelled the leases granted in favour of the lessees on the ground of fraud and material irregularities in the procedure followed by the concerned authority. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner approached this Court by contending that the leases could not have been cancelled in view of 2nd proviso to Section 7-A(3) of the OGLS Act.

4. Heard Mr. S.C. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. S.N. Das, learned ASC for the State.

5. Admittedly, the leases were granted in the year 1975 and thereafter, OP No.2 exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 7-A (3) of the OGLS Act, cancelled it under Annexure-3. While cancelling the leases, OP No.2 examined the lower court case records and detected material irregularities being committed by the then Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar, inasmuch as, the records did not reveal proper enquiries to have been conducted before settling the Government lands. It was noticed by OP No.2 that no public notices were issued inviting objections as by a common Istahar all six applications were dealt with and subsequently, settled with the lessees and that again, without considering the eligibility criteria which was directly in violation of Rule-3 of the OGLS Rules, 1974. That apart, OP No.2, after perusal of field enquiry reports submitted by OP No.3, noticed that income criteria/conditions vis-a-vis the lessees had not been fulfilled. Furthermore, OP No.2 doubted as to if the lessees really belong to a particular community and in that respect, material facts to have been suppressed purposefully in order to avail benefits under the OGLS Act. Besides the above, OP No.2 observed serious violations of the provisions of the Orissa Communal, Forest & Private Lands (Prohibition of Alienation) Act, 1948, while settling the lands in favour of the lessees and ultimately, with a conclusion that fraud has been perpetrated and as due procedures were not followed, rather, brazenly breached, cancelled the leases under An