The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Collector's duty is to act in conformity with the provisions of law and that the possession of the land for more than five years satisfies the requirements for permanent settlement, emphasizing the heritable and transferable rights of the lessee in Khasmahal land.

JUDGMENT

B.R. Sarangi, J. - The petitioners, by means of this writ petition, seek to quash the letter dated 02.08.2018 issued by the Assistant Collector, Office of the SubCollector, Sadar, Cuttack in Annexure-8, whereby Khasmahal Lease Case No. 1211/2002 has been returned to the Tahasildar, Sadar, Cuttack, and to issue direction to the Collector, Cuttack-opposite party no.2 to grant approval to the recommendation made by the Tahasildar, Sadar, Cuttack-opposite party no.3 in KLC No. 1210/2002, KLC No. 1211/2002 and KLC No. 1212/2002, and further direction to the opposite parties to permanently settle the leasehold lands in favour of the petitioners within a period to be fixed by this Court.

2. The factual matrix of the case, in a nutshell, is that one Late Bira Kishore Kar, son of Late Krushna Chandra Kar was the original lessee of the land appertaining to J. No. 66/1, Khata No. 414, Plot No. 389 (P), Area Ac. 0.172 dec. of Mouza- Ramagarh, Bholamia Bazar, Tahasil- Cuttack Sadar. The said lease was granted in his favour for a period of 30 years w.e.f. 01.04.1973 valid up to 01.04.2003. Late Bira Kishore Kar sold the aforesaid land to the present petitioners vide registered sale deeds executed on 04.11.1985 with due consideration, and since then all the petitioners are residing on the homestead land having constructed residential houses thereon and are in peaceful possession over the same. The petitioners are also paying holding tax as well as rent in respect of the suit land.

2.1 The petitioner no.1 purchased an area of Ac.0.068 dec. of plot no. 866/3657, holding no. 623, petitioner no.2 purchased an area of Ac.0.062 dec. of plot no. 866 of holding no. 623/A/1 and petitioner no.3 purchased an area of Ac.0.045 dec. of plot no. 866/3658 of village Ramgarh, Bholamia Bazar. Late Bira Kishore Kar, the vendor of the petitioners, had also his residential house over the said land, before it was purchased by the petitioners. After purchase of the land, the same was separately mutated in the name of the petitioners and Records of Rights were also published separately in favour of each of the petitioners.

2.2 Before expiry of the period of Khasmahal lease, the petitioners no.1, 2 and 3 applied for renewal of the lease permanently in KLC No. 1210/2002, KLC No. 1211/2002 and KLC No. 1212/2002 respectively in accordance with the rules to the Tahasildar, Sadar, Cuttack. After registering such Khas Mahal cases filed by the respective petitioners, due enquiry was conducted by the Amin, who submitted a report on 20.02.2008 to the Tahasildar stating that the petitioners are in peaceful possession over their respective land having constructed residential houses thereon. On receipt of such report from the Amin, the Tahasildar, Sadar, Cuttack, vide its order dated 08.06.2009, recommended the case of the petitioner no.1 for permanent settlement and submitted the case records to the Collector, Cuttack for favour of approval as required under Rule 3(a) of Orissa Government Land Settlement Rules, 1983 (for short "OGLS Rules, 1983"). Same and similar recommendations were also made by the Tahasildar, Sadar, Cuttack separately in favour of the petitioners no. 2 and 3 vide order dated 26.06.2009 and their cases were forwarded to the Collector, Cuttack for approval.

2.3 As per the provisions contained under Orissa Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 (for short "OGLS Act, 1962") and the Rules framed thereunder, the Collector was to accord approval for settlement of the leasehold property permanently, but on flimsy grounds and without application of mind all the three cases were several times returned to the office of the Tahasildar, Sadar, Cuttack and finally, vide letter dated 08.08.2016, the Tahasildar, Sadar, Cuttack clarified all the points raised in the objections from the office of the Collector and further gave a recommendation in favour of the petitioners. Though the case of the petitioners no.1 and 2 had come back from the office of the Collector for cl