K.B. Panda, J. - (1.)IN this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the Petitioner seeks to quash the orders passed by the Collector, Puri opposite party No. 3 and Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Cuttack opposite party No. 2 dated 20.3.1973 and 6.7.1974 in Misc. Case No. 17 of 1972 and Lease Revision Case No. 8 of 1973 (Annexures 7 and 8) respectively. The concerned land comprises only 0.14 acre appertaining to plot No. 55 under khata No. 80 of mouza Chandrakot of Pipili Tahasil, recorded in the last settlement as "Abada Jogya Anabadi" with a note of illegal possession by the Petitioner since 1959.
(2.)THE history of the land referred to in the petition is not relevant for the purpose of disposal of this application. Suffice it to say, on 15 -2 -1971 the Petitioner had been granted a lease of the same. One Tahsildar started Encroachment Case No. 102 of 1970 -71 against the Petitioner evidently on the footing that he was an encroacher in respect of this 14 decimals of land. The disputed land is contiguous to the house of the Petitioner which he had enclosed with brick walls and had put cocoanut trees therein. In the receipt record -of -rights in the 'Remarks' column there was a note of illegal possession by the Petitioner since 1959. After the encroachment case was started, the Petitioner prayed that the land be leased out to him in consonance with the Government order No. 14960(6) - Enc -33 -63 -R dated 4 -3 -1964, which lays down that all lands encroached by parties be settled with them on receipt of Salami etc., if such encroachment is prior to 13 -9 -1961 and unobjectionable. Accordingly, Salami was accepted from the Petitioner, back rent was collected and the status of occupancy right was conferred on him. However, a Patta had not been issued.
The successor of the Tahasildar, who had granted lease, recommended on 20 -3 -1973 for cancellation of the entire lease of 14 decimals or at least 4 decimals therefrom. The Collector (opposite party No. 3) started Misc. Case No. 17 of 1972 and without any enquiry recommended for cancellation of the lease to the Revenue Divisional Commissioner (opp. party No. 2) mainly on three grounds, namely, (1) the encroachment of land is objectionable; (2) the Petitioner practised fraud in obtaining the lease; and (3) it interfered with a third party's right.

(3.)THE Revenue Divisional Commissioner disposed of the matter (Lease Revision No. 8 of 1973) by setting aside the order of the Tahsildar who had granted the lease and directed for a fresh inquiry and settlement. Evidently it was under two grounds, namely, (1) a lease cannot be granted in an encroachment proceeding; and, (2) granting of lease under approved lease principles is not legal when the Orissa Land Settlement Act has come into force.