A private individual lacks locus standi to invoke revisional jurisdiction under the OEA Act, which is restricted to motions initiated by the Collector or suo motu by the Board of Revenue.

Judgment :

The Petitioner, by filing this writ Petition, has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying therein to quash an order dated 23.03.2022 passed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, Cuttack (Opposite Party No.2) in O.E.A. Revision Case No.7 of 2017 as at Annexure-4 thereby.

2. Briefly stated, for the purpose, the case stands as under:-

The land in question, which is the subject matter of the above-noted revision case, was initially with the Ex-Intermediary as the owner.

As per the case of the Petitioner, much before the vesting by virtue of the notification made State Government, in exercise of the power conferred under Section 3 of the Orissa Estate Abolition Act, 1951 (for short, ‘the OEA Act’). The Ex-intermediary has leased out the land by way of unregistered permanent lease deed for agricultural purpose to one Tilottama Samal and Uchhaba Sahu. It is stated that after vesting, the lessee filed O.E.A. Vesting Case No.75 of 1959-60 before the Tahasidlar, Cuttack and the same was allowed directing fixation of rent in favour of the lessee, namely, Tilottama Sahu and Uchhaba Sahu. It is also the case of the Petitioner that although the rent was fixed in that Vesting Case, in the subsequent settlement, the land was recorded in favour of the Government. So, Revision Petition was filed before the learned Member, Board of Revenue for appropriate correction of the recording in the settlement Record of Right. That Revision Petition, being allowed, the land came to be recorded in the name of the lessee, namely, Tilottama and Uchhab in the record of right. They continued to possess the land as before.

In the Record of Right under Hal Settlement published in the year 1989, the land in question stood recorded in the name of the lessees. The lessees, however, in the Hal Settlement, having mutually partitioned the land, separate Record of Rights were published in their name in respect of the land, which they got in the amicable partition in their respective shares. The original lessee Tilottama, under different sale deeds, sold different parcels of land in total to the extent of Ac.1.160 decimals to six different persons by executing Registered Sale Deeds.

This Petitioner is the bona fide purchaser of that Ac.1.160 decimals of land by a registered sale deed from those six purchasers from the original lessee Tilottama. The Petitioner- Company deals in real estate and develop the same. The Petitioner-Company, receiving the approval of the building plan from the concerned Authority, then constructed multi-storied building over the said land and by now, sold flats to several persons under registered sale deeds and those purchasers are in occupation of the flats, which they have purchased for valuable consideration.

When the matter stood thus, one Sudhansubala Sahu, who had purchased some land from out of the land in question over which the Petitioner had put up the building from some imposters, had filed one Civil Suit in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhubaneswar numbered as T.S. No.29 of 2002. In that suit, the Petitioner placed the order passed in OEA Vesting Case No.75 of 1959-60 in favour of their vendor-lessee. That order passed in the OEA Vesting case was recognized as such in the said suit and the suit stood dismissed.

In this way, after expiry of fifty-six years from the date of passing of the said passed in OEA Vesting Case No.75 of 1959-60, the Collector, Khurda, Opposite Party No.1 filed Revision Case No.7 of 2017 nomenclatured to be one under section 38-B of the O.E.A. Act to set a