The central legal point established in the judgment is the jurisdiction of Settlement Authorities and the validity of leasehold property alienation under the relevant land settlement acts.

ORDER

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. The Petitioner in this writ petition seeks to assail the order dated 15th July, 2013 (Annexure-1) passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Rental Colony, Bhubaneswar in Suo Motu Rent Case No. 6525 of 2013.

3. It is submitted by Mr. Behera, learned counsel that originally the land pertaining to Sabik Plot No. 783/1386 to an extent of Ac.4.900 decimals under Sabik Khata No.233/78 of mouza Sampur under Bhubaneswar Tahasil in the district of Khurda was settled in favour of one Kunja Bihari Tripathy under the provisions of the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 (for short 'the O.G.L.S. Act') in W.L. Case No. 858 of 1968-69. Subsequently, a suo motu revision case was initiated under Section 7-A(3) of the O.G.L.S. Act against said Kunja Bihari Tripathy in Revision Case No. 323 of 2000, which was dropped holding the lease in his favour to be valid. Said lessee Kunja Bihari Tripaty in order to meet his legal necessity applied for permission in Revenue Misc. Case No. 10 of 1989 to alienate the leasehold property and the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar vide his order dated 28th April, 1989 held that since 10 years have been elapsed from the date of lease of the leasehold property, no permission under Section 6-A of the O.L.R. Act for transfer of the said property was necessary. After disposal of Revenue Misc. Case No. 10 of 1989, said lessee Kunja Bihari Tripathy sold the case land to different persons out of whom the Petitioner purchased an area of Ac.0.059 decimals out of Ac.4.900 decimals in Sabik Plot No.783/1386 under Sabik Khata No.233/78 situated in mouza Sampur in the district of Khurda vide RSD No.5700 dated 20th June, 1990 (for short 'the case land') and is possessing the case land exercising his right, title and interest thereon. After purchase, the Petitioner also got the case land mutated in his name in Mutation Case No. 4121 of 1990. During settlement operation, draft R.O.R. under Section 12 of the Odisha Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act') was also published in the name of the Petitioner under Annexure-5. Subsequently, the Assistant Settlement Officer, Rental Colony, Bhubaneswar for the reason best known to him initiated a suo motu proceeding in Suo Motu Rent Case No.6525 of 2013 and the impugned order has been passed without serving any notice to the Petitioner and without giving him an opportunity of hearing directing to record the case land in Government Khata.

4. It is submitted by Mr. Behera, learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Assistant Settlement Officer has no jurisdiction to initiate a suo motu rent objection case after the land has been published under Section 12 of the Settlement Act. Further, in view of the ratio decided in the case of Lily Nanda -v- State of Odisha, reported in 2018(I) OLR-559, the Tahasildar lacks jurisdiction to sit over the settlement made under the O.G.L.S. Act. But, without considering the same, the Assistant Settlement Officer, Rental Colony, Bhubaneswar passed the impugned order under Annexure-1, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Mr. Behera further submits that this Court in a writ petition involving similar question of fact and law in W.P.(C) No.26211 of 2019, which was disposed of vide order dated 29th January, 2021, directed the Assistant Settlement Officer, Rental Colony, Bhubaneswar now functioning as Settlement Officer in the office of Major Settlement Office, Jobra, Cuttack to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. He, accordingly, prays for the aforesaid relief.

5. Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State while not disputing the case law cited by Mr. Behera, learned counsel for the Petitioner and the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.26211 of 2019 submits that the Petitioner has a remedy of revision to assail the order. As such, the writ petition is not maintainable. The writ pet