Khasmahal leases confer permanent rights to lessees, including renewal and transferability, and recording of leased land in government khata is impermissible if prior rights exist.

JUDGMENT :

B.P. Routray, J.

1. Heard Mr. D.P. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. U.K. Sahoo, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State-Opposite Parties.

2. The impugned order dated 27.02.2015 passed in Settlement Revision No.145 of 2012 of Additional Commissioner of Settlement and Consolidation, Balasore under Annexure-11 is challenged in present writ petition.

3. The Petitioners are the LRs of one Surama Sundari Chatterjee.

4. The property in question is pertaining to Sabik Settlement Khata No.410 having Plots No.38/2, 1588/2, 38/3, 1588/3 and 1589/1 corresponding to Hal Khata No.579 with Plots No.762, 763, 1067 and 1068 of mouza-Srikanthapur in the district of Balasore.

5. Initially Khasmahal lease in respect of the property in question was granted in favour of Surama Sundari Chatterjee in the year 1934 for a period of 15 years. In the year 1949, the same was renewed for a further period of 15 years till 1964 and again renewed for another period of 15 years till 1979. In the meantime, said Surama Sundari Chatterjee died and her LRs (present Petitioners) applied for renewal of said Khasmahal lease in the year 1982 vide Khasmahal Lease Case No.2/1982. But said application of the year 1982 was lost and could not be traced out. In this regard, information was supplied under the RTI Act to the Petitioners on 6.1.2007. Thereafter the Petitioners applied afresh before the Tahasildar vide Lease Case No.9/2007.

6. Pending said lease proceeding, the land in question was recorded in Government Khata in favour of P.W.D. Department in the year 1987 during Hal settlement. So Lease Case No.9/2007 filed by the Petitioners was dropped by the Tahasildar since the land was recorded in favour of Government in the meantime. The Petitioners again approached the Collector, Balaosre in his original jurisdiction to settle the land in their favour which was also rejected and thereafter it was carried in appeal and revision. The revisional order dated 27.02.2015 is the subject of matter of challenge in the present writ petition.

7. Mr. D.P. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Khasmahal lease being permanent in nature, the recording of the land in Hal settlement operation in favour of the Government is not permissible and therefore, their application for settlement should be allowed.

8. State has filed their counter taking the same stand that in the meantime the land has been recorded in Government Khata in the Hal settlement and the application filed thereafter by the Petitioners for settlement is therefore not maintainable.

9. On the backdrop of such rival contentions stated above, the grant of Khasmahal lease in favour of Surama Sundari Chatterjee in the year 1934 and subsequent renewal thereafter remains admitted. It is further seen from the copy of the Yadast under Annexure-3 that during the Hal settlement operation upon field enquiry said Surama Sundari Chatterjee was found in possession of the land and therefore, the order was passed on 28.6.1973 in the Hal settlement, as recorded in the Yadast, to prepare the ROR in favour of said Surama Sundari Chatterjee.

10. When it remains undisputed about the initial status of the land as Khasmahal property granted in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the Petitioners, the question falls for determination here is that, whether the Khasmahal lease granted in favour of Surama Sundari Chatterjee can be treated as permanent lease and subsequent recording of the land in Government khata is liable to be set aside ?

11. Law is no more res integra on the