Authorities must exercise their powers as mandated by statute; failure to adhere to prescribed procedures renders actions invalid, especially when natural justice principles are violated.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Behera, learned counsel for the petitioner and Miss. Ratho, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

2. Challenge has been made to the impugned order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Bhubaneswar Settlement Camp, Rental Colony, Bhubaneswar, opposite party no.5 in Objection Case No.7990/25 of 2012.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one Sahadev Naik was allotted Ac.0.880 decimals of land in Sabik Plot No.705 under Sabik Khata No.245 in Mouza-Sampur on lease by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar, opposite party no.4 vide W.L. Case No.1359/1959-60 and lease Patta was issued in his favour vide Annexure-1. While he was in possession of the said land, he, after obtaining permission from the Revenue Officer vide Revenue Misc. Case No.96/80 (Annexure-2), has sold the suit land to one Balamani Dei (opposite party no.7) on 5.1.1981 vide registered sale deed no.83 (Annexure-3) and delivered possession to her. Thereafter, opposite party no.7 sold an area of Ac.0.100 decimals out of Ac.0.880 decimals of land to one Ghanashyam Behera (opposite party no.8) on 27.11.1981 vide registered sale deed no.8778 (Annexure-4). Thereafter, opposite party no.8 sold his part of purchased land to the present petitioner on 30.09.1997 vide registered sale deed no.4672 (Annexure-5). While the mater stood thus, the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar reviewed the W.L.Case No.1359/1959-60 under Section 3(b) of the O.G.L.S. Act, 1962 and resumed the suit land settled in favour of the original lessee vide order dated 10.5.2002 (Annexure-6) without issuing notice to the subsequent purchasers violating the provisions of principles of natural justice. The said order vide Annexure-6 was challenged before this Court by different subsequent purchasers in W.P.(C) No.11425 of 2006 and this Court vide order dated 19.9.2006 quashed the order passed by the Additional Tahasildar on 10.5.2002. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Tahasildar to record the land in her name and as the settlement operation was going on in the concerned Mouza, the Tahasildar advised the petitioner to approach the settlement authority for recording the land in her name. Thereafter, the petitioner, being the subsequent purchaser of the land in question appeared before the Assistant Settlement Officer and the Assistant Settlement Officer, after making field enquiry and verifying the records, has prepared the Yadsast in favour of the petitioner and also issued the draft record of right (PARCHA) in her favour vide Annexure-10 series.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that when the final record of right (ROR) was going to be prepared by the settlement authority in the rent camp, the Assistant Settlement Officer purportedly exercising the power beyond his purview, has directed to record the purchased land of the petitioner in favour of the State Government. According to him, such exercise of such power by the Assistant Settlement Officer is not in accordance with either under O.G.L.S. Act, lease principle or under any law.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that since the Assistant Settlement Officer is not the competent authority to cancel/resume the land to Government Khata, the impugned order is also otherwise illegal.

6. Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that she has no instruction in the matter but submitted that Court may pass any appropriate order as deemed fit and proper.

7. Considered the submission of the learned counsel for the respective parties. It is the admitted fact that Sahadev Naik has been granted lease of the land in question vide W.L. Case No.1359/1959-60, who sold the same to opp