AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Biswanath Rath, J.
In filing this writ petition the writ petitioner while challenging the notice under Annexures-1 & 2 involving the proceedings vide O.L.R. Case No.21
of 1995 has also challenged the provisions contained in Section 8-A(1)(c) and (3) of the O.L.R. Act inserted by Section -3 of the Orissa Land
Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1993 and at the same time, the petitioner also sought for a declaration that the land of the petitioner mentioned in the
schedule under Annexure-2, is covered under Clause (v) of Section 8-A(2) of the O.L.R. Act but inadvertently typed as 8(A)(3) of the Act.
Bringing to the notice of this Court the fact involving the dispute involved herein, Shri Chhinchani, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner is a Medical Superintendent of Christian Hospital, Bissamcuttack as landlord, admittedly constructed on the purchase of the disputed land
from the Rayat under State and as a consequence of valid purchase. Taking into consideration all legal aspects the Record of Rights under Annexure-
4 has been prepared showing the petitioner to be the owner of the land. The Record of Rights though showing the land to be in agricultural category
but the Medical Superintendent is shown as the owner of the land. Shri Chhinchani, further submitted that when the matter stood thus and the hospital
was running smoothly the petitioner is surprised to received the notice vide Annexure-1 bringing out a prima-facie determination of the State
Authorities exercising the power under the provision of the O.L.R. Act and giving a notice to the petitioner thereby on 8.12.1995 to attend the O.L.R.
Case No.27.12.1995 to place his case in the matter of determination of premium made by the competent authority. For the admitted change in the
nature and character of the agricultural land by the petitioner-establishment, Shri Chhinchani also contended that subsequent to issuance of notice vide
Annexure-1 the petitioner has again been served with the notice under Annexure-2 appearing to be a notice for payment of rayat issued in exercise of
power under Sub-rule 3 of Rule 12(A) of the O.L.R. Act asking the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.8,33,000/- as the land revenue within a period of
one month or four quarterly installments, thereby it was also intimated to the petitioner that failure in deposit of the amount under the above terms,
steps shall be taken by the competent authority to recover the land arrear as land revenue.
Filing this writ petition challenging the order at Annexures-1 & 2 Shri Chhinchani, learned counsel taking this Court to the facts mentioned as a first
step, has challenged the provisions brought by way of amendment under Sub-section 2 of Section 8(A) of the O.L.R. Act for the inconsistency in
between the Section 8 and Section 8(A) of the O.L.R. Act and also on the ground of arbitrariness and discrimination involved therein. As a second
step learned counsel for the petitioner taking this Court to the averments made by the petitioner and the specific pleadings raised by the petitioner in
the writ petition that looking to the distance of the land from the point of view of parameters indicated in the Section 8(A) Sub-section 2 of the
amended act contended that for the location involving the petitioner’s Hospital, the assessment, if at all would have been there, the same would
have been applying, the provision at Clause (V) of Sub-section 2 of Section 8(A) of the amended Act.
During course of argument, bringing to the notice of the development taken place in between as at Annexure-5 of the rejoinder affidavit filed by the
petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the State having taken into the grounds raised herein has already come up with an amended
notification on 20.01.2006 almost meeting with the requirements indicated in the writ petition. It is for the developments vide Annexure-5, learned
counsel for the petitioner submitted that not only his challenge to the amended provision at Section 8(A) Sub-section 2 is almost lost but the notification
dated 20.01.2006 since applied prospectively and having covered all the grounds made in the writ petition, petitioner confined this writ petition to the
effect that the notification should be applied retrospectively so as to cover the case of the petitioner also. Shri Chhinchani taking reliance of a decision
of a Full Bench of the Madras High Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner (CT) Anna Salai-III Assessment Circle, Chennai versus Indian
Overseas Bank, Chennai & Anr. as reported in AIR 2017 Madras 67 on the plea of coverage of the aforesaid judgment to the case of the petitioner,
submitted that the petitioner has the support of the aforesaid decision and as such the petitioner deserves to get the relief sought in the writ petition.
Shri Senapati, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties on the other hand, while objecting the contentions
raised by the petitioner submitted that for the disclosures of the petitioner in the cause title, the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the same in
the writ petition. Further, taking this Court to the loss of time in between and taking into account the date of amendment of the provision at Section
8(A) of the O.L.R. Act and further the date of hearing for the substantial loss of time and for the competent authority having decided several such
matters applying such provisions in the meantime, no challenge involving the amended provision should be entertained at this stage of the matter at
least to avoid any conflict involving such issues. Shri Senapati, further submitted that in the event, such pleas are considered at this point of time, it will
affect thousands of decisions taken following such provisions in between. Shri Senapati further challenging the claim of the petitioner for applicability
of Clause ‘v’ of the Sub-section 2 of Section 8(A) of the Act for covering the case of the petitioner, taking this Court to the averments made in
paragraph no.9 of the counter affidavit contended that for the materials available establishing that the petitioner’s institution situated at a distance
of 10 feet from the State Highway, there has been right consideration of the case of the petitioner and that too particularly looking to the positioning of
the petitioner-Institution leaving any scope for interfering in the matter at this point of time. Answering to the claim of the petitioner on the basis of the
notification at Annexure-5, learned Additional Government Advocate for the retrospectivity of the notification at Annexure-5 and further for no
challenge involving the notification at Annexure5 brought in the year 2006 as of now before this Court, such contentions are not entertainable at this
point of time. It is under these premises, Shri Senapati, learned Additional Government Advocate made request for dismissal of the writ petition
without entertaining any of the prayers made therein.
Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds, admittedly, the facts involved herein is that the petitioner is a Medical
Superintendent of Christian Hospital, Bissamcuttack. Following the disclosures made in Annexure-4 admittedly the petitioner is the owner of the land.
It is in the circumstance, this Court finds, there is no difficulty in entertaining the writ petition at the instance of the petitioner. Now coming to the other
aspect involved in the matter, this Court finds, there is no dispute with regard to the status of the land belonging to agricultural category and that
therefore, applying the provisions of the O.L.R. Act rightly a proceeding under the provisions of the O.L.R. Act has been initiated involving the
petitioner vide Annexure1 by registering a case vide O.L.R. Case No.21 of 1995. It is at this stage of the matter, this Court entering into the question
of validity of the provision at Section 8(A) of the O.L.R. Act to find out whether such a challenge still subsists or not, takes into account the
submission of the petitioner that for bringing out of the notification vide Annexure-5 and the developments therein, the purpose of challenge to the
above provision is virtually lost, this Court finds, there is force in his such submission and therefore there is no need to enter into such controversy
now. For the development vide Annexure-5, this Court also finds, there is no scope for entertaining such issues presently.
Now coming to consider the grievance of the petitioner with regard to non-application of the appropriate clause in the matter of assessment of the
conversion value, finding specific plea of the petitioner in the writ petition indicated therein that the Hospital being situated at a particular distance is
not covered under clause (v) of Sub-section-2 of the Section 8(A) of the Act and looking to the counter averments made in the paragraph no.9 of the
counter affidavit that for the materials available with the State authority establishes the hospital situates at a distance of 10 feet from the State
Highway thereby attracting the provision of sub-clause (II) of Subsection-2 of Section 8(A) of the Act and further for the pleadings of the petitioner in
the rejoinder at paragraph no.12 involving the details of the positioning of the Hospital, this Court finds, since the petitioner by giving notice under
Annexure-1 was asked to appear before the O.L.R. Authority to satisfy his case vis a vis the demand of the State on realization of the premium at
that point of time and for petitioner’s noncooperation resulting the outcome vide Annexure-2, this Court observes, the petitioner instead of
approaching this Court straightway, had the opportunity to defend his case before the competent authority by attending the proceedings involved
Annexure-1. Looking to the order of this Court dated 28.02.1997 this Court finds, while issuing notice this Court by the interim order in disposal of the
Misc. Case No.2512/97 not only stayed the effect of demand vide Annexure-2, this Court has also stayed the further proceeding involving O.L.R.
Case No.21 of 1995 involving Annexure-1.
It is under the circumstances and as this Court finds, there is no finality of the dispute involving the petitioner, this Court finds, the petitioner has a
grievance in the matter of positioning of the petitioner’s hospital and claiming the application of specific provisions at Sub-section 2 of Section 8(A)
of the O.L.R. Act, for the objection of the State authority to the above effect particularly bringing to the notice of the Court regarding actual
positioning of the hospital and further taking into account the heavy amount involved in Annexure-2, this Court remits the matter back to the
Tahasildar-cum-Authorized Officer, AT/P.O.-Bissamcuttack to readjudicate the proceeding involving O.L.R. Case No.21 of 1995. Further, looking to
the sufficient loss of time and State revenue involved herein; this Court remits the matter for fresh adjudication of the dispute vide Annexure-1 subject
to however, with the condition that the petitioner will deposit 50% of the amount involved in Annexures-1 & 2 before the competent authority within
two weeks hence as undertaken by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Since this Court remits the matter back to the competent authority for re-
adjudication of the dispute, this Court while permitting the petitioner to file his detail objection before the authority also within two weeks on his
appearance at the latest by 9th of April, 2018 and the Tahasildar-cum-Authorized Officer or the Officer competent to take up such issues at present,
shall do well in disposing the matter within a period of two months thereafter by giving opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned. It is directed
that till a decision is taken, there shall be no effect to the order at Annexure-2, but however, subject to petitioner’s depositing 50% within two
weeks and the effect of the order vide Annexure-2 shall be dependant on the ultimate outcome in the O.L.R. Case No.21 of 1995.
The writ petition succeeds, but with an order of remand for fresh adjudication and subject to deposit by the petitioner in terms of the direction
contained hereinabove. No cost. Â