Authority under statutory law must act within defined limits; remitting issues back to lower authorities without jurisdiction is invalid.

JUDGMENT :

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

The petitioners have approached this Court with the following prayer:

It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue Rule Nisi, in the nature of writ of Certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ/writs, direction/directions and order/orders, calling upon the Opp.Parties, to show cause as to why the order dated 29.08.2013 passed by the O.P. No. 3 in Objection Case No. 3368 of 2013 vide VOS in Objection Case No. 5625 of 2013 under Annexure-10 & 10-A and the order dt. 17.12.2024 passed in RP Case No. 1658 of 2014, of the O.P. No.1 as under Annexure-12 respectively, thereby apparently confirming the recording of the scheduled land in Govt. Khata vide Annexure-13 shall not be quashed with further direction to record the schedule land in the name of the Petitioners, in Sthtiban Status giving due regards to Govt. Circular vide Anenxure-14, within a particular time;

And

If the Opp.Parties fails to show cause and/or show insufficient and/or false cause, make the said rule Nisi absolute,

And/Or, pass any other order as deemed 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 one Nanda Nayak was granted lease of a Government land in W.L. Case No. 2676 of 1973. He sold the land to one Sakuntala Dash after obtaining permission of the appropriate authority under Section 22 of the OLR Act. Petitioner is one of the legal heirs of said Sakuntala Dash, after hear death by virtue of deed of mutual settlement dated 29.08.2007 vide Annexure-9 was allotted a share of land to the petitioner. A proceeding was initiated against Nanda Nayak for resumption of the lease by the ADM, Bhubaneswar under Section 7 (A) (3) of the OGLS Act. By order dated 23.04.1987, the ADM, after noting the facts, remitted the matter to the Tahasildar with the following observation:

“It has not been ascertained on enquiry if the O.P. is landless and if he has no other profitable means or livelihood in order to be eligible for settlement of land under the Act and Rules in force. However, it appears that the leassee is a S.T. person of the concerned village and also does not appear to be a man of means. In the circumstances he may be an eligible person. But in view of the material irregularities enumerated above it is not possible to confirm the lease. As such the case is remitted back to the Tahasildar for fresh enquiry and disposal according to law. The case is remanded.”

3. Pursuant to such order, the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar made necessary inquiry and found that the original lessee was eligible for grant of lease. By order dated 21.03.1995, the following was, inter alia, was observed:

xxx

xxx

xxx

“In view of the foregoing observations, the lessee Sri Nanda Naik is considered to be an eligible beneficiary as per norms laid down in O.G.L.S Rule 1974 and omission (sic-permission) contained in W.L case no.- 676/73have been complied.

Send the case record to R.K to incorporate the following in the R.O.R in accordance with the clearance of Addl. District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar vide letter no.972 dated 25.01.90.”

xxx

xxx

xxx

Thus, the lease being held valid, the subsequent purchaser ought to have been treated as such. However, though the name of Sakuntala Dash was recorded in the Not-Final ROR, yet in the final ROR, the same was recorded as Abadajogya Anabadi in the name of the Government. Be it noted that during pendency of the settlement operations, the petitioner had filed an objection being Objection Case No. 3368 of 2013 but the same was rejected. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed revision under Section 15 (b) of the OSS Act registered as R.P Case No. 1658 of 2014 bef