The Collector cannot revise fixed rent unilaterally without adhering to principles of natural justice, as mandated by the Odisha Survey and Settlement Act, 1958.

JUDGMENT :

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

1. The petitioner in the present writ application seeks the following relief:

“It is, therefore, prayed that in the facts and circumstances stated above and in the interest of justice this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writs/directions quashing the orders under Annexure-5 & 7 and to issue the writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/direction directing the Opposite Party No.2 to accept the rent of Rs. 1030/- as rent for the land which has been incorporated in the Records-of- Rights and which is deemed to be the fair and equitable rent under Section-27 of Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958.

And, pass any other appropriate directions, as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.

And, for this act of kindness the petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray.”

2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the land in question being Government land, was leased out to Abhijit Sen, Sanjay Sen and Sumitra Sen belonging to Kolkata and subsequently transferred in their favour on 30.01.1996 by executing Lease Deed. The petitioner, which is a company purchased the property from the above-named lessees vide Sale Deed No. 4966 dated 07.04.1997. The property was thereafter mutated in favour of the petitioner company in the Record of Right, a copy of which is enclosed as Annexure-3 to the writ application. The annual rent was fixed at Rs. 1030/- besides cess at Rs. 772.50. The petitioner thereafter paid the rent so fixed. Suddenly, by letter dated 02.03.2002, copy of which is enclosed as Annexure-5, the Tahasildar, Puri wrote to the Manager of the company informing that the Collector, Puri had fixed the revised annual rent of the above leasehold land at Rs. 60,000/- w.e.f. the year 1998-1999. Subsequently, by letter dated 04.01.2003, the Tahasildar, Puri furnished the details of the outstanding dues of rent on the basis of the rent so revised. The total outstanding was calculated at Rs. 3,72,000/-. The revision of rent and the calculation of outstanding dues are the subject matter of challenge before this Court in the present writ application.

3. No counter affidavit has been filed by the State but the learned State counsel preferred to make oral submissions.

4. Heard Mr. R.K. Mohanty, learned Senior counsel with Mr. S. Biswal for the petitioner and Mr. S.S. Routray, learned ASC for the State.

5. Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior counsel referring to different provisions of Odisha Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 would argue that the impugned order is entirely without jurisdiction firstly, for the reason that the Collector has no power to unilaterally revise the rent already fixed at the time of mutation of the property. Secondly, the principles of natural justice as enshrined in the relevant provision have not been adhered to at all. Mr. Mohanty draws attention of this Court to the provisions under Chapter-IV of the Act relating to settlement of rent. He, in particular refers to Section 19 (2) which lays down the principles of fixing rent in respect of non-agricultural property. Mr. Mohanty also refers to the provision under Section 21, particularly sub- section 2 thereof which mandates that no revision of rent shall be made until reasonable opportunity has been given to the parties concerned. Mr. Mohanty also fairly submits that the Act allows revision of rent by the Asst. Settlement Officer only after following the procedure laid down therein. The case of Kalinga Tubes Ltd. v. State of Orissa , 1974 SCC OnLine Ori 33 is cited by Mr. Mohanty in this regard.

6. Mr. Routray, learned State counsel would submit that since the Collector foun