TUSAR KANT MISHRA Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is purchaser from original allottee. Said allottee got allotment on belonging to a Scheduled Tribe. It is undisputed that the allottee, after obtaining permission under sec. 22 of Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 had sold it away to petitioner. The authority had initiated Lease Revision Case no.106 of 1998 in respect of the lease. Original allottee not having responded to the notice, the case was dealt with resulting in cancellation of the lease. On coming to know, petitioner moved this Court by WP(C) no.6145 of 2007, disposed of by order dtd. 26/11/2010. There was direction for the authority to go into the matter. There was also direction for petitioner to appear before the authority, for the latter to fix a date for filing petitioner's show-cause and thereafter proceed with the case and dispose of it in terms of decision in Gopaldas Agrawal v. State of Orissa, reported in 2005(II) OLR 475.

(2.) Mr. Panda, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, initiation of the lease case was barred by limitation. It is only in year, 2013 that there was amendment deleting the provision. The authority relied upon the amendment to justify the cancellation order. It could not be so done. In any event no reasons were given. He seeks interference and appropriate direction for recording his client's name against the land.

(3.) Mr. Rout, learned advocate, Additional Standing Counsel appears on behalf of State. He submits, by the 2013 amendment the bar of limitation was removed. As such, there was no illegality committed by the authority in treating the case to have application of the amended provision in sec. 7A, of Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960.