Sanat Kumar Samantray vs State Of Orissa And Others

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

Heard Mr. G. Satapathy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. L. Samantaray, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State.

The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 25.11.1982 passed in Lease Revision Case No. 11 of 1982, by which the Additional District Magistrate set aside the order dated 27.02.1978 of the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar and directed the said Tahasildar to correct the records and takeover possession of the land, if possession thereof was delivered to the opposite party.

Mr. G. Satapathy, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner’s name is “Sanat Kumar Samantaray” in whose favour the land was leased out by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar in the year 1978. But the Additional District Magistrate initiated the proceeding against one “Sanat Kumar Mishra” instead of the petitioner “Sanat Kumar Samantaray” and passed the order dated 25.11.1982. Therefore, no notice was issued to the petitioner-Sanat Kumar Samantaray and, as such, the order dated 25.11.1982 was passed ex-parte, for which the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Even if such order was passed in the year 1982, but the petitioner came to know of the same at a later stage and immediately filed an application for correction of name and to initiate fresh proceeding with proper name and with due notice to the lessee. However, the said application is still pending.

Mr. L. Samantaray, learned Additional Government Advocate contended that the application filed by the petitioner under Annexure-4 for correction of the name in the lease revision Case No. 11 of 1982 and for initiation of fresh proceeding, is pending with the authority. In view of such, if the proceeding was initiated against improper person, the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, however finds that the proceeding having been initiated against one “Sanat Kumar Mishra” instead of “Sanat Kumar Samantaray”, the original lessee, therefore, the order dated 25.11.1982 passed in lease proceeding, i.e. Lease Revision Case No. 11 of 1982 cannot be sustained in the eye of law and the same is liable to be set aside and is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar to re-hear Lease Revision Case No. 11 of 82 afresh by giving opportunity of hearing to the parties. To cut short the proceeding, let the petitioner appear before the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar on 21.09.2023, so that the ADM can fix the date of hearing and proceed in the matter after affording opportunity of hearing to all the parties.

With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.

…………………………