Bishnu Charan Jena and Others vs State of Orissa and Others

B.S. Chauhan, C.J.—In mid seventies, certain reserve forest land had been allotted to individuals which could not be permissible under law. The litigation started in 1984 as it is evident from the order of this Court dated 24.3.1992 passed in OJC No. 2461 of 1984. Subsequently, this Writ Petition was filed raising the grievance that the lease deeds which had been executed illegally should be cancelled and the persons who have been put in possession should be dispossessed. The matter was entertained and this Court vide Order Dated 23.3.2004 directed the authorities to take action in accordance with law for cancellation of the lease granted to some individuals. In compliance thereof, it appears that some action was taken, but since the Petitioners were not satisfied, Order Dated 15.5.2008 was passed directing the authorities to furnish full particulars as to in how many cases the lease deeds have been cancelled. In pursuance thereof, an affidavit has been filed by the authorities pointing out that lease deed had been cancelled in 46 cases and it has also been brought. to the notice of the Court that lease deeds which had been executed in favour of the Ex-Army Personnel were also cancelled. However, against the orders of cancellation they approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) Nos. 1331-1332 of 2006 which were decided by the Court vide Judgment and Order Dated 14.8.2006 allowing their Writ Petitions on various grounds including that the lease deed could not be cancelled after expiry of period of limitation of 14 years as provided under the provision of Section 7 A of the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act and the order of the Court/authority below had been set aside. Subsequently, W.P.(C) No. 1333 of 2006 was filed and the same were allowed vide Order Dated 10.1.2007, following the earlier Judgments, Writ Petition No. 10156 of 2006 was allowed vide Judgment and Order Dated 10.8.2006. The Writ Petition No. 10158 of 2006 was also allowed vide Judgment and Order Dated 10.8.2006. The said orders attained finality.

On the other hand, Mr. M.S. Panda has pressed Misc. Case No. 10208 of 1999 wherein the prayer has been made to direct the enquiry against the officers responsible for executing illegal lease deeds. It is further pointed out by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that he has submitted a list of forty nine lease cases. However, the State Authorities have cancelled only forty six lease deeds and the other lease deeds have not been cancelled. Similarly, there were many other lease deeds which have not yet been cancelled. Therefore, the matter requires full fledged enquiry for fixing the responsibility on the persons responsible for executing the lease deed illegally.

Sri Swain, Learned Addl. Standing Counsel has submitted that the lease deeds were executed in early 1970 and the officers who could be involved in execution of the illegal lease deeds must have retired by now. While dealing with the earlier Writ Petition No. 2461 of 1984, this Court has not directed any enquiry against those persons and it will be difficult for the State to hold any enquiry at such a belated stage.

We have considered the rival contention of the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

So far as the Misc. case for issuance of enquiry is concerned, it is difficult for this Court to direct the State Government to initiate enquiry as persons involved in such illegal activities must have been retired by now and the State Government may not be in a position to impose any punishment against retired persons. Therefore, we find no force in such a misc. case and it is accordingly dismissed.

So far as the direction to take possession of the land and restore it to the Forest Department is concerned, the State Authorities are given four months time and by all means possession of the land should be restored to Forest Department by 31.5.2009 and the Tahasildar, Tirtol is directed to submit compliance report before this Court within the 1st week of June, 2009. The Tahasildar may also examine the list of forty nine cases given by the Petitioner and find out whether there is any illegal lease deed which has not yet been cancelled and if found existing, he shall ensure cancellation thereof. It shall be open to the Petitioner or any other person to bring to the notice of the Tahasildar concerned about other illegal lease deed. If any such illegal lease deed is brought to the notice of the Tahasildar concerned, the Tahasildar is directed to proceed in accordance with law and cancel the lease deed.

Mr. Panda has submitted that the Writ Petition filed by the Ex-Army Personnel have been illegally allowed by this Court, thus, the matter is required to be re-examined. We are afraid that once the Judgment and order of the writ Court attained finality, it is neither permissible nor desirable to re-open the case and that too in the writ jurisdiction.

With the aforesaid observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

B.N. Mahapatra, J.

I agree.