Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
K.R. MOHAPATRA, SAVITRI RATHO
Tilottama Bahinipati – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of land lease and disputes. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding land use and resumption. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court observations on evidentiary issues. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. confirming use of land for agriculture. (Para 8 , 10) |
| 5. discretion in maintaining writ jurisdiction. (Para 9 , 12) |
| 6. ruling and order for land recording. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT :
2. Petitioner in this writ petition seeks to assail the order dated 2nd July, 2024 (Annexure-9) passed by the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar in WL Case No.1278 of 1974 initiated under Section 3 -B of the Odisha Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 (for brevity ‘the Act’) whereby, the lease granted to the lessee was resumed. The Petitioner also prays for a direction to the authorities to prepare the RoR in the name of the Petitioner.
4. Mr. Mukherji, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioner submits that on perusal of the impugned order under Annexure-9, it is crystal clear that the case land was directed to be resumed on the solitary ground that the same was not being used for the purpose it was leased out. It was observed in the impugned order that the case land was lying fallow and was not being use
The resumption of land under Section 3-B cannot be solely based on observations of land lying fallow; substantial evidence of actual non-use for its intended purpose is required.
An order made without jurisdiction is void and cannot be sustained; ownership rights established must be recognized despite conflicting authority actions.
An order made without jurisdiction is null and void, reinforcing the established property rights in land ownership disputes under the Odisha Survey and Settlement Act, 1958.
A writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 is maintainable when statutory authorities act without jurisdiction, allowing for correction of records even after finalization.
Orders made by statutory authorities lacking jurisdiction can be challenged in writ petitions, especially when valid leases are ignored, affirming the court's authority to rectify such errors.
The court ruled that administrative bodies must act within jurisdiction, and violations of due process make orders void, reinforcing the court's authority to intervene in such instances.
Writ petitions are maintainable where statutory authorities exceed or usurp their jurisdiction, particularly when prior valid leases are ignored, necessitating correction of Record of Rights in favor....
Authority cannot cancel confirmed leases under a different statute, maintaining jurisdiction of High Court to intervene when lower authority exceeds legal bounds.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
