The exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 38-B of the OEA Act should be reasonable and not arbitrary, and delay in exercising such jurisdiction may impact the rights of the parties involved.

JUDGMENT :

R.K. Pattanaik, J.

1. Instant writ petition under Article(s) 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 is at the behest of the Petitioner questioning the correctness, legality and judicial propriety of the impugned order dated 17th August, 2009 (Annexure-6) passed in OEA Revision Case No.21 of 1998 by the Member, Board of Revenue (OP No.2) under Section 38-B of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as ‘OEA Act’) on the grounds inter alia that the jurisdiction was exercised arbitrarily and with considerable delay and therefore, deserves to be set aside in order to do substantial justice.

2. By order under Annexure-6, jurisdiction under Section 38-B of the OEA Act, which according to the Petitioner, was exercised after 56 years despite the fact that in Nijdakhal Case No.480 of 1959-60, the schedule land was settled with the intermediary, who, thereafter, sold it to the vendees under RSD No.3534 dated 19th March, 1962, whereafter, there was an amicable partition held between the purchasers and even part of the mortgaged property was disposed of by an auction in E.P. Case No.1683 of 1984-85 for clearing a loan with the Land Development Bank, Puri and in so far as Ac.10.2 decimals of land in the share of Annapurna Suar is concerned, the same was settled with the raiyats under Section 36A of the OLR Act, 1960 in OLR Case Nos.1221 of 1976 and 572 of 1997 and thereafter, the raiyats further sold it to Petitioner under Annexures-3,4&5, inasmuch as, the aforesaid facts were not duly taken cognizance of by OP No.2, who straightaway directed correction of ROR, which is not at all tenable in law.

3. Heard Mr. N.P. Parija, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. D.K. Mohanty, learned AGA for the State.

4. Mr. Parija contends that OP No.2 arbitrarily unsettled the order of the OEA Collector in OEA Nijdakhal Case No.480 of 1959-60 notwithstanding the fact that the schedule land, after several transfers by sale, reached in the hands of the Petitioner through Annexure-3, 4 & 5. The decision of OP No.2 is that the status of the land was anabadi which could not have been settled with intermediaries, who, thereafter, inducted tenants but on its vesting, the same became the subject of the State. In response, Mr. Parija contends that the land was made abadi by the intermediaries and while being in their khas possession was settled in OEA Nijdakhal Case No.480 of 1959-60. It is further contended that OP No.2 could not have ignored the decisions of the OLR authorities, consolidation record of rights as well as the execution and sale of mortgaged property vide E.P. Case No.1683 of 1984-85 and that too exercising the jurisdiction with so much of delay and therefore, the impugned order under Annexure-6 is susceptible and thus, liable to be interfered with.

5. Per contra, Mr. Mohanty, learned AGA would submit that the schedule land was anabadi in status and remained with the State post vesting and therefore, could not have been settled with the intermediaries. While contending so, a decision of the Apex Court in State of Orissa v. Nityanand Satpathy and others (2003) 7 SCC 146 is placed reliance on. One more decision in State of Orissa and others v. Harapriya Bisoi 2009 (1) OLR SC 1100 is cited by Mr. Mohanty which is with reference to Section 5(i) of the OEA Act and further contended that since the claim of the Petitioner is not genuine, it cannot hold good even under a sale vide RSD No.902 dated 13th January, 1994 and therefore, the impugned order (Annexure-6) is unassailable.

6. Admittedly, the settlement was made vide Nijdakhal Case No.480 of 1959-60. The circumstances under which the settlement was carried out were elaborately dealt with by OP No.2 in Annexure-6. It was noticed by OP No.2 that initially the intermediaries executed lease deeds but subsequently the settlement was stage managed in Nijdakhal Case No.480 of 1959-60; furthermore, the intermediaries were held not entitled to the settlement of anabadi la