AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sashikanta Mishra, J
The petitioner in the present writ application seeks the following relief:
“It is, therefore, prayed that in the facts and circumstances stated above and in the interest of justice this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writs/directions quashing the orders under Annexure-5 & 7 and to issue the writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/direction directing the Opposite Party No.2 to accept the rent of Rs. 1030/- as rent for the land which has been incorporated in the Records-of-Rights and which is deemed to be the fair and equitable rent under Section-27 of Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958.
And, pass any other appropriate directions, as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.
And, for this act of kindness the petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray.”
The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the land in question being Government land, was leased out to Abhijit Sen, Sanjay Sen and Sumitra Sen belonging to Kolkata and subsequently transferred in their favour on 30.01.1996 by executing Lease Deed. The petitioner, which is a company purchased the property from the above-named lessees vide Sale Deed No. 4966 dated 07.04.1997. The property was thereafter mutated in favour of the petitioner company in the Record of Right, a copy of which is enclosed as Annexure-3 to the writ application. The annual rent was fixed at Rs. 1030/-besides cess at Rs. 772.50. The petitioner thereafter paid the rent so fixed. Suddenly, by letter dated 02.03.2002, copy of which is enclosed as Annexure-5, the Tahasildar, Puri wrote to the Manager of the company informing that the Collector, Puri had fixed the revised annual rent of the above leasehold land at Rs. 60,000/- w.e.f. the year 1998-1999. Subsequently, by letter dated 04.01.2003, the Tahasildar, Puri furnished the details of the outstanding dues of rent on the basis of the rent so revised. The total outstanding was calculated at Rs. 3,72,000/-. The revision of rent and the calculation of outstanding dues are the subject matter of challenge before this Court in the present writ application.
No counter affidavit has been filed by the State but the learned State counsel preferred to make oral submissions.
Heard Mr. R. K. Mohanty, learned Senior counsel with Mr. S. Biswal for the petitioner and Mr. S.S.Routray, learned ASC for the State.
Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior counsel referring to different provisions of Odisha Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 would argue that the impugned order is entirely without jurisdiction firstly, for the reason that the Collector has no power to unilaterally revise the rent already fixed at the time of mutation of the property. Secondly, the principles of natural justice as enshrined in the relevant provision have not been adhered to at all. Mr. Mohanty draws attention of this Court to the provisions under Chapter-IV of the Act relating to settlement of rent. He, in particular refers to Section 19(2) which lays down the principles of fixing rent in respect of non-agricultural property. Mr. Mohanty also refers to the provision under Section 21, particularly sub-section 2 thereof which mandates that no revision of rent shall be made until reasonable opportunity has been given to the parties concerned. Mr. Mohanty also fairly submits that the Act allows revision of rent by the Asst. Settlement Officer only after following the procedure laid down therein. The case of Kalinga Tubes Ltd. v. State of Orissa, 1974 SCC OnLine Ori 33 is cited by Mr. Mohanty in this regard.
Mr. Routray, learned State counsel would submit that since the Collector found that the rent was not property fixed, taking into consideration all the relevant aspects, he decided to revise the same.
It would be apposite at the outset to refer to the relevant statutory provisions. Chapter-IV deals with Settlement of Rent. Section 18 deals with settlement of rent while Section 19 refers to the principles for fixing rent. Section 21, which is relevant, is reproduced below:
“21. Preliminary publication and amendment of Settlement Rent Roll [(1) Went rent has been fixed, the Assistant Settlement Officer shall prepare a Settlement Rent Roll containing such particulars as may be prescribed and shall cause the same to be published in the prescribed manner and for the prescribed period and shall receive and consider any objections which may be made to any entry therein or omission therefrom during the period of publication.
(2) The Assistant Settlement Officer may, of his own motion or on the application of any party aggrieved, at any time before a Settlement Rent Roll is submitted to the Settlement Officer under Section 22, revise the rent entered therein:
Provided that no such revision shall be made until reasonable opportunity has been given to the parties concerned to appear and be heard in the matter.”
From a bare reading of the above quoted provision, it is abundantly clear that though power is conferred on the Asst. Settlement Officer to revise the rent, yet the same cannot be done unilaterally or without following principles of natural justice.
Viewed in light of the above mandate of law, this Court finds that there is nothing on record to show that any opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner by the Collector or the Tahasildar before revising the rent from Rs. 1030/- to Rs. 60,000/- Therefore, the impugned order, on the face of it, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. In the case of Kalinga Tubes Ltd. (supra) a division Bench of this Court reiterated the mandate of the statute, observing as follows:
“The Assistant Settlement Officer was bound to follow the provisions of the statutes and the Rules made thereunder and should not have been guided by executive instructions beyond the purview of the act and the Rules. We are satisfied that the assessment of rent under the Act has not been made keeping the terms of the Act and the requirements of the Rules in view. The concerned public authorities have allowed their statutory functions to be guided by executive instructions and have failed to discharge their duty as required under the law.”
In such view of the matter, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the impugned order being issued in a manner contrary to the requirement of the statute, warrants interference.
The writ application is therefore, allowed. The impugned orders under Annexure- 5 & 7 are hereby quashed. Before parting, this Court would further like to observe that in view of the interim order passed by the Court at the time of issuing notice in the writ application, the petitioner has been paying rent at the revised date. Such being the factual position, the authorities concerned are directed to adjust the rent so paid against the outstanding dues to be calculated at the pre-revised rate. Necessary orders shall be passed by the Tahasildar, Puri within one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order by the petitioner.