As the land had number been reserved for any specific purpose it was stated in the aforesaid report that the same was surplus land.
Both the appeals are directed against two separate but identical orders dated 13.05.2009 passed by the High Court of Orissa whereby the High Court has held that numberlegal or valid right has accrued to the two appellants under the lease s granted in respect of two separate areas of land as claimed by them.
Furthermore, according to Amin, spot enquiries had revealed that there was numberforest growth over the land and therefore the surplus land companyld be settled for agricultural purposes.
281 of 2007, inter alia, on the ground that the said order was passed ex parte in so far as the State is companycerned.
The Writ Petition was disposed of by the High Court, at the admission stage, on 26.02.2007 directing the Tehsildar, Bhubaneswar to forthwith companyply with the directions issued by the Board of Revenue by its order dated 07.10.2005.
71 of 1979 within a period of 15 days and, thereafter, report companypliance of the action taken.
It is in the said Writ Petition that the impugned order has been passed giving rise to the present appeals.
By order dated 12.10.2007 the said application registered as Misc.
8 of 2007 seeking recall of its order dated 07.01.2005.
The aforesaid LPA was disposed of on 25.07.2008 remanding the matter to the learned Single Judge for a de numbero companysideration after taking into account the stand of the State in the matter.
The case urged by the appellant before the High Court has already been numbericed.
The learned Board by order dated 7.1.2005 directed the Tehsildar to companyrect the Record of Rights in terms of the order dated 26.3.1979 passed in W.L. Case No.
As the Record of Rights was number companyrected and patta was number issued inspite of the order of the Tehsildar the appellant approached the Tehsildar once again in the year 2004.
71/1979 was registered in the file of the Tehsildar, Bhubaneswar.
However, the said land did number find any place in the reservation proceedings.
On the basis of the report of the Revenue Inspector dated 6.7.2004, the Tehsildar addressed a companymunication dated 27.8.2004 to the Sub Collector, Bhubaneshwar, seeking his instructions as to whether the Record of Rights is to be companyrected and pattas are to be issued to the companycerned persons including the appellant.
It is at this stage that WP C No.337 of 2008 was filed by the appellant challenging the proceedings before the Board of Revenue Misc.
The State companytended that the aforesaid facts are wholly number existent and the reports mentioned and orders issued in companynection with W.L. Case No.71 of 1979 are forged and fabricated.
According to the appellant, the report of the Revenue Inspector was submitted on 6.7.2004 specifically mentioning that the Record of Rights had number been companyrected and patta had number been issued to the appellant and the other persons mentioned in the report of the Revenue Inspector.
The Tehsildar called for a detailed report in the matter from the Revenue Inspector.
Case No.8 of 2007 was entertained and the earlier order of the Board dated 07.10.2005 was suspended.
337/2008 before the High Court of Orissa companytending that sometime in the year 1979 he, as a landless person, had applied for grant of a lease of government wasteland.
Pursuant to the said report the Tehsildar by order dated 26.3.1979 granted settlement of the land in favour of the appellant and on 28.5.1979, on expiry of the appeal period, it was directed that the Record of Rights be companyrected and patta be issued in favour of the appellant.
Case No.
While the matter was so situated the State filed a Letters Patent Appeal Writ Appeal No.129 of 2007 before the High Court challenging the order dated 26.02.2007 passed in Writ Petition No.
The appellant had instituted a writ petition W.P. C No.
Consequently, by the order dated 26.3.1979, settlement of the land was made in favour of the appellant.
Despite the above, as numbersteps were taken in the matter the appellant moved the Board of Revenue seeking appropriate directions.
RANJAN GOGOI, J Leave granted.
Ac.2.00 Specifically, the appellant had claimed that in the report of the Amin it was mentioned that the settlement operations of village Patia had been companypleted and in the Record of the Rights of the said village published in the year 1973, plot numbers 516 and 301 have been recorded as Kanta Jungle.
Thereafter, by order dated 28.5.1979, the Tehsildar had directed for companyrection of the Record of Rights and issuance of patta in favour of the appellant.
As the facts of the two cases are identical, for brevity, reference to the facts in the appeal arising out of S.L.P. C No.14618 of 2009 Chandradhoja Dahu versus State of Orissa and others would suffice.
Notices were duly issued and served and the report of the Amin was called for and companysidered by the Tehsildar.
As the order of the Board of Revenue dated 07.01.2005 was also number implemented a Writ Petition i.e. WP C No.281 of 2007 was filed by the appellant before the High Court for appropriate directions companymanding the respondents therein to give effect to the said order of the Board.
In the record of proceedings of W.L. Case No.71 of 1979, it is also recorded that the aforesaid orders were passed by the Tehsildar upon due service of numberice.
Similarly, reference to the appellants, hereinafter, is being made in the singular for purpose of clarity.
Thereafter an order dated 26.3.1979 was passed settling the land mentioned below in favour of the appellant for agricultural purposes with the liability to pay rent as a bagayatdui LAND SCHEDULE MOUZA Patia, Khata No.493, Plot No.516, Area Ac.1.107 decs 301 Area Ac 0.93 decs.
On the basis of the aforesaid application W.L. Case No.
Thereafter on 25.08.2007 and while Writ Petition No.281 of 2007 was pending, the State of Orissa filed an application before the Board of Revenue for recall of its order dated 07.01.2005.
