The Assistant Settlement Officer acted without jurisdiction in cancelling a lease, violating statutory authority under the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 and established legal principles.

JUDGMENT :

ARINDAM SINHA, J.

1. Mr. Samantaray, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, impugned are orders dated 11^th July, 2013 and subsequent undated order, both passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer (ASO), purporting to cancel the lease, firstly suo motu and thereupon reiteration of the same, when his client had moved the authority in revision. He submits, leases come within domain of Orissa Government Land Settlement Act, 1962. The ASO acted wholly without jurisdiction. He relies on judgment dated 2^nd January, 2023 of the first Division Bench in this Court made in, inter alia, WP(C) no.1608 of 2014 ( Narottam Rath v. State of Odisha and another ). He relies on paragraphs 16 and 17. The paragraphs are reproduced below.

“16. Be that as it may, it is plain that in all these cases, the ASOs exercised ‘suo motu powers’ to override the orders of the ADM under the OGLS Act in favour of the predecessors-in-interest of the Petitioners or refused to record their names in the ROR despite there being no objections to the draft publication of the ROR.

17. Clearly the ASOs were acting without jurisdiction and beyond the scope of their powers under the OSS Act. It is obvious that powers which could have been exercised only under the OGLS Act were sought to be exercised by the ASO which was impermissible in law for them to do. The above extracted portions of the orders of this Court conclusively settle the legal position in this regard and do not bear repetition.”

Also he relies on our order dated 14^th March, 2023 in WP(C) no.25429 of 2022 ( Subhashree Mishra v. State of Odisha and others ). We reproduce paragraph 2 from said order.

“2. Mr. Nanda, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of State and relies on paragraph-20 in said judgment, reproduced below.

“20. The above directions will be carried out within a period of four months from today. It is made clear that this order will not prevent the Government from exercising powers under Section 3-B of the OGLS Act, in accordance with law.”

2. Mr. Sharma, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of State and submits, this Bench does not have assignment. Impugned orders have been passed by the ASO under Odisha Survey and Settlement Act, 1958. Without prejudice he submits, impugned order dated 11^th July, 2013 was made by the ASO under sub-section (2) of section 21 in Odisha Survey and Settlement Act, 1958. It was duly made. There should not be interference. He submits, Narottam Rath (supra) is not applicable to petitioner’s case. In Narottam Rath (supra), the leases were confirmed by orders passed by the Additional District Magistrates (ADM). In this case petitioner had managed to get recorded her name claiming settlement by lease. Hence, this case is distinguishable on facts. Furthermore, it is valuable Government land and there be direction for filing of counter. He submits further, the writ petition suffers from inordinate delay disentitling petitioner to get any relief.

3. Mr. Samantray submits, there is explanation in paragraph 7. We reproduce below a passage from said paragraph.

“Soon after knowing about the said ex-parte order dated 11.07.2013, passed in Suo Motu Rent Objection Case No.5961/5190 of 2013, the petitioner applied for certified copy of the order in both Suo Motu Rent Objection Case No.5961/5190 of 2013 and Rent Objection Case No.664/795 of 2012 and after obtaining the same, she was astonished as her rent objection case was also rejected on the self same ground without reflecting any date and also without hearing the petitioner as was assured to her. Hence the