The legal principle established is that the settlement of land must have the necessary sanction as required by relevant acts, and the revisional jurisdiction under the OEA Act can be exercised even after a long period of time, depending on the specific circumstances of the case.

JUDGMENT :

R.K. Pattanaik, J

1. Both the writ petitions have been filed by the Petitioner assailing the legality and judicial propriety of the impugned order dated 26th August, 2011 (Annexure-1) passed in O.E.A. R.C. Suo Motu Case No.101 of 2008 under Section 38-B of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as ‘OEA Act’) by the Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack (O.P.No.2) on the grounds inter alia that the decision is erroneous, arbitrary and beyond jurisdiction and therefore, liable to be interfered with and set aside.

2. The Petitioner contends that O.P.No.2 did not have any jurisdiction in interfering with an order recognizing a tenant’s right in possession of a land on the date of vesting by the OEA authority which is by virtue of an administrative enquiry. It is further contended that the Hukumnama (Annexure-2 series), after due enquiry, having been found to be genuine by the authority under the provisions of the OEA Act, O.P. No.2 acted in excess of jurisdiction in rejecting it without any material to the contrary. As per the Petitioner, the impugned order under Annexure-1 is wholly misconceived in law, inasmuch as, the provisions of Orissa Communal Forest and Private Lands (Prohibition of Alienation) Act, 1948 (shortly referred to as ‘Act 1 of 1948’) are totally inapplicable to the private estates. It is the further contention of the Petitioner that Section 5(i) of the OEA Act is not applicable since the possession on the strength of Hukumnama (Annexure-2 series) is neither a settlement nor a lease or a transfer. It is, thus, contended that O.P.No.2 could not have unsettled the tenancy right vis-à-vis the schedule land which was ensured in accordance with Section 8(1) of the OEA Act. On the above grounds, the impugned order under Annexure-1 is challenged by the Petitioner as bad in law.

3. Heard Mr. G. Misra, learned Senior Advocate and Mr. S.N. Das, learned ASC appearing for the State.

4. As per the claim of the Petitioner, an application in the Darbar of the Nagra Zamindar was moved by his late father in the year 1949-50 seeking permission to reclaim Ac.19.00 dec. of land in village-Brahmanitarang. On receipt of such a request, the then Zamindari Court directed the Amin to enquire into the matter and submit a report, which was accordingly furnished along with a trace map, where after, a general proclamation was published inviting objections and as no any objection was received, the Hukumnama dated 31st December, 1949 vide Annexure-2 series was issued in Reclamation Case No.453 of 1949-50 in respect of the land in question and thereafter, the kisam was changed to Mala and Goda-II and was possessed. It has been contended that the Nagra Zamindar, who issued the Hukumnama, had the administrative authority to lease out waste lands in favour of the persons, who would become tenants under him. Further claimed that since the schedule land was settled in favour of the Petitioner’s father and it was possessed till the vesting by a notification dated 27th November, 1952, he being a deemed tenant in view of Section 8(1) of the OEA Act, rightly the same was given effect to administratively which is in accordance with law but O.P.No.2 derecognized the tenancy, thus, thereby committed the illegality.

5. On the contrary, the contention of the State is that the schedule land was illegally settled with the father of the Petitioner in Revenue M.C. No.27 of 1978 with a direction by the Tahasildar, Kuanrmunda (O.P.No.4) for payment of rent which was without confirmation of the Board of Revenue as necessarily required in view of Section 5(i) of the OEA Act which was challenged in Revision Petition No.3 of 1998 before the Collector, Sundargarh (O.P.No.3) but the settlement was upheld by order dated 26th February, 1999 and since the above decision was without the statutory sanction, suo motu proceeding was initiated and as a result, the impugned order under Annexure-1 was passed which is absolutely justified and acco