AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mr. Rout, learned advocate, Additional Standing Counsel appears on behalf of State and submits with reference to observation made in order dated 10th November, 2022. He draws attention to order dated 27th August, 2015 made by the Additional Sub-Collector. He demonstrates from reasoning given therein that the lease was for industrial purpose. Conditions of the lease had not been fulfilled by the lessee. Initially the land was recorded in Anabadi Khata and, therefore, purpose and conditions of the lease became important. Since lease conditions were violated, the land should be returned to Government Khata and it was so directed. There is nothing wrong in said order, impugned in the writ petition. The lessee did not have authority to mortgage the land.
Mr. Das, learned advocate appears on behalf of opposite party no.4 [Odisha State Financial Corporation (OSFC)]. He submits, the appeal was at instance of a third party. It ought not to have been entertained. His client duly acted in exercise of power under section 29 in Odisha State Financial Corporation Act, 1951. He draws attention to letter dated 17th August, 1999 written by his client to the Tahsildar. Text of the letter is reproduced below.
“With reference to the above, this is to inform you that the assets (land & building) of the erstwhile unit M/s. Green Valley (P) Ltd, Gochhapada Road, Phulbani were seized by the Corporation u/s-29 of SFCs Act 1951 on dated 21.11.96 due to non payment of dues and subsequently sold in favour of M/s. Orissa Jesuit Society, Loyola Bhawan, 58, Forest Part, Bhubaneswar on outright purchase basis. The purchaser has taken over possession of the land and building on 20.7.99.
No. for transfer of title deed in the name of the purchaser, you are requested to inform us the cess dues lying against the old unit, so that appropriate action for payment of the said dues shall be taken at our end.”
He submits, all that is now being said by the administration in appeal and revision thereafter, were not said at that time. His client moved duly and in accordance with law for recovery of dues from the lessee by dealing with the land. He submits, opportunity be given to his client to file affidavit.
Mr. Das submits with reference to order dated 29th April, 2020 that the Revenue Divisional Commissioner did point out a contingency of fresh lease. His client is also an industrial unit and by letter dated 16th December, 2021 had applied for lease in respect of the land to the Distinct Collector and Magistrate.
Opposite party no.4 may file affidavit on adjourned date upon advance copies circulated.
List on 27th February, 2023.
……………………………….