The court ruled that administrative decisions affecting rights must provide specific grounds and ensure the affected parties have a right to a fair hearing.

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 dated 13^th August, 1987 (Annexure-1) passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar-Opposite Party No.2 in Revision Case No.203 of 1987 initiated under Section 7 -A(3) of the Odisha Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 (for brevity the ‘OGLS Act’).

3. Mr. Jena, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that father of the Petitioner, namely, Kartika Sahoo (for brevity ‘the lessee’) being a landless person, filed an application for lease of a Government land. Accordingly, W.L. Case No.2251 of 1980 was initiated by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar and the father of the Petitioner was leased out Plot No.1076 to an extent of Ac. 0.100 decimals under Khata No.443 in Ghatikia Mouza under Bhubaneswar Tahasil in the district of Khurda (erstwhile in the district of Puri) (for brevity ‘the case land’) vide order dated 14^th February, 1981. Since then, the lessee along with his family members possessed the land in exercise of their right, title and interest. When the matter stood thus, the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar-Opposite Party No.2 initiated Revision Case No.203 of 1987 under Section 7 -A(3) of the OGLS Act alleging illegalities and irregularities in granting the lease in favour of the lessee. Upon receipt of notice, the lessee appeared before the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar and filed his written statement/show cause reply. The case was thereafter adjourned to different dates and on 13^th August, 1987, the revision case was taken up by the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar. The lessee could not know the date of such posting. As such, he could not appear before the revisional Authority and defend his case. Resultantly, the impugned order under Annexure-1 was passed on 13^th August, 1987 without providing an opportunity of hearing to the lessee. Further the written statement/show cause reply filed by the lessee was not taken into consideration by the revisional Authority. Since the lessee was absent on the date of hearing of the revision, the Petitioner, being the daughter, had no occasion to know about the pendency of the revision and the order passed therein. When the staff of the Bhubaneswar Tahasil threatened the Petitioner to evict, she came to know that in Revision Case No.203 of 1987, the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar cancelled the lease granted in favour of the lessee and directed to record the land in Government khata. Accordingly, she applied for certified copy of the case record and has filed the writ petition.

4. It is submitted by Mr. Jena, learned counsel for the Petitioner that in that process, some delay has occurred in filing the writ petition. Since a substantial civil right of the Petitioner and other family members is affected, they should be given an opportunity of hearing in the revision. The impugned order under Annexure-1 is cryptic and non-speaking. No specific finding with regard to alleged illegalities and irregularities in granting the lease has been stated in the impugned order. Hence, he prays for setting aside the impugned order under Annexure-1 and to remit the matter to the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar for fresh adjudication of Revision Case No.203 of 1987.

5. Mr. Biswal, learned Additional Standing Counsel submits that the impugned order under Annexure-1 is well reasoned. The Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar providing adequate opportunity to the lessee and scrutinizing the case record with regard to the lease granted in favour of the lessee, came to a categorical conclusion that there are irre