STATE OF ORISSA Vs. SURYA RANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals by the State of Orissa, by special leave, from separate judgments of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in O. J. C. Nos. 5149 and 5150 of 1995 dated 2/11/1995, raise a common question, so they are being disposed by a common order. We shall now refer to the facts giving rise to these appeals.

(2.) Under the Orissa Land Ceiling Act one sadasiba Naik of village Lipinda was declared to hold surplus land which vested in the State of Orissa. The Orissa Land Reforms (General) rules, 1965 (for short 'the Rules') , inter alia, provide for settlement of the excess land. The relevant rule is Rule 38a. Claiming to be a landless poor, the husband of the respondent in Civil Appeal No. 1926 of 1997 and the respondent in Civil Appeal No. 1927 of 1997 applied in March, 1977 for allotment of tend in their favour and under sub-rule (2) (a) of the said Rules pattas of an extent of acres 2.85 and acres 2.97 in village Ghodadiha, respectively, were granted in their favour. Possession of the land was also delivered to them in 1986. It appears these settlements gave rise to cause for complaints to the villagers and objections were filed by them alleging that the grantees were not landless poor. The Revenue Authorities investigated into the matter and submitted reports. In exercise of the power under clause (bb) of sub-rule (10) of Rule 38a, the Revenue divisional Commissioner after making necessary enquiry cancelled patta granted in favour of the said persons on 15/11/1994. They challenged the orders of the Revenue divisional Commissioner cancelling patta in writ Petitions (O. J. C. No. 5149 of 1995 and o. J. C. No. 5150 of 1995). The High Court took the view that the impugned orders of the revenue Divisional Commissioner after a long lapse of about 13 years would not be a proper exercise of power conferred upon him under the Rules and quashed the said orders on November 2, 1995. Those orders of the High court are under challenge in these appeals.

(3.) Mr. Radhe Shyam Jena, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, contends that patta was obtained by the respondents by misrepresentation and playing fraud, therefore, the High Court ought not to have quashed cancellation orders as it results in encouraging the fraud played by the settlees. As the respondents though served did not enter appearance, we requested Mr. Naik to appear for them as an amicus curiae. The learned amfcus curiae has argued that patta was cancelled after long lapse of time which by no standard can be termed as reasonable and that the facts in the case of Ghasiram Rana disclose that he was not in possession of any land on the date of grant of patta but came into possession of the land on the death of his father, therefore, patta ought not to have been cancelled in the case of the said Ghasiram Rana.