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 of the rightful holder.

JUDGMENT :

By the Bench;

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. The Petitioner in this writ petition seeks to assail the order passed in the month of April, 2013 under Annexure-1 (date not mentioned in the order) by the Asst. Settlement Officer, Rental Colony, Bhubaneswar in Objection Case No.10873/1149 of 2013 and also the order dated 16^th September, 2013 (Annexure-2) passed by the Additional Sub- Collector-cum-Settlement Officer, Bhubaneswar in Suit No.1643 filed by the Petitioner under Section 22 (2) of the Odisha Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 (for brevity ‘the Settlement Act’).

3. Brief description of the relevant facts as revealed from the writ petition is that Plot No.1249 to an extent of Ac.1.435 decimals under Khata No.325/26 situated in Mouza Pathargadia under Bhubaneswar Tahasil in the district of Khurda (for brevity ‘the leasehold property’) was leased out in favour of one, Hadibandhu Mahakhud in W.L. Case No.824 of 1974 by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar. Accordingly, Record of Right (RoR) was also prepared in his name. Subsequently, suo motu revision case being L.R. Case No.623 of 1987 under Section 7 -A(3) of the Odisha Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 (for brevity ‘the OGLS Act’) was initiated by the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar in respect of the leasehold property. The Additional District Magistrate vide order dated 21^st September, 1987, cancelled lease of the leasehold property granted in favour of Hadibandhu Mahakhud, the lessee. Assailing the same, the lessee preferred W.P.(C) No.4814 of 2005 before this Court. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 20^th June, 2005 remitting the matter to the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar for fresh adjudication providing opportunity of hearing to the lessee. On remand, the Additional District Magistrate conducting a fresh enquiry and providing opportunity of hearing to the lessee, dropped L.R. Case No.623 of 1987 vide order dated 11^th August, 2006. When the matter stood thus, the lessee, for his legal necessity, alienated Ac.0.061 decimals (for brevity ‘the case land’) out of the leasehold property in favour of the Petitioner vide Registered Sale Deed (RSD) dated 1^st August, 2011 and delivered possession thereof to the Petitioner. Since then, the Petitioner has possessed the case land exercising his right, title and interest thereon. Thereafter, the Petitioner went on paying land revenue in respect of the case land on behalf of the lessee. Subsequently, the Petitioner approached the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar to mutate the land in his name. Only then he was informed that the preliminary RoR of the leasehold property including the case land has been prepared in the name of the State Government under Section 12 of the Settlement Act. Thus, being aggrieved, the Petitioner filed Objection Case No.10873/1149 of 2013 under of the Settlement Act. The Asst. Settlement Officer without verifying the revenue record and ignoring the fact that the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar has confirmed the lease granted in favour of the lessee, namely, Hadibandhu Mahakhud, dismissed the objection case. Thus, the Petitioner being aggrieved, preferred appeal (Suit No.1643) under -A of the Settlement Act, which was also dismissed vide order dated 16^th September, 2013 (Annexure-2). In the meantime, final RoR under -B of the Settlement Act has already been published in favour of the State Government.

4. It is submitted by Mr. Roy, learned counsel that the Peti