Back
ORISSA HIGH COURT
MADHUSMITA BEHERA – Appellant
Versus
STATE and ORS. – Respondent
Judgment :
By the Bench;
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Petitioner in this writ petition seeks to assail the order dated 15th July, 2013 (Annexure-3) passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Rental Colony, Bhubaneswar in Objection Case No.10126/2013.
3. Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that one Ganeswar Sahoo, being a landless person, applied for a piece of Government land to be settled in his favour. Accordingly, W.L. Case No.1057 of 1978 was initiated and vide order dated 30.10.1978, the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar settled Hal Plot No.5928 of Hal khata No.2053 of village-Andharua to an extent of Ac.1.00 decimals (for brevity ‘leasehold property’) in favour of said Ganeswar Sahoo by way of a lease. A lease deed was also executed in his favour and RoR in respect of the leasehold property was also published in favour of the lessee. When the mater stood thus, the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar initiated a suo motu proceeding under Section 7-A (3) of the Odisha Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 (for brevity ‘the OGLS Act’) in Revision Case No.10 of 1982 and vide order dated 08.01.1988, cancelled the lease granted in favour of said Ga
The court ruled that administrative bodies must act within jurisdiction, and violations of due process make orders void, reinforcing the court's authority to intervene in such instances.
Writ petitions are maintainable where statutory authorities exceed or usurp their jurisdiction, particularly when prior valid leases are ignored, necessitating correction of Record of Rights in favor....
A writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 is maintainable when statutory authorities act without jurisdiction, allowing for correction of records even after finalization.
Orders made by statutory authorities lacking jurisdiction can be challenged in writ petitions, especially when valid leases are ignored, affirming the court's authority to rectify such errors.
Authority cannot cancel confirmed leases under a different statute, maintaining jurisdiction of High Court to intervene when lower authority exceeds legal bounds.
An order made without jurisdiction is null and void, reinforcing the established property rights in land ownership disputes under the Odisha Survey and Settlement Act, 1958.
An order made without jurisdiction is void and cannot be sustained; ownership rights established must be recognized despite conflicting authority actions.
The resumption of land under Section 3-B cannot be solely based on observations of land lying fallow; substantial evidence of actual non-use for its intended purpose is required.
Settlement Authorities have no jurisdiction to sit over the settlement made under the lease principles and must respect the settlement made under the lease principles.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
