1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in these appeals is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Orissa High Court allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent in Writ Petition (C) No. 8282/2004 dated 27.10.2005 and the order dated 10.1.2007 passed in the Review Petition No. 13/2006 arising out of said writ petition.
3. The background facts as highlighted by the appellants are as follows:
The dispute relates to an alleged lease of 53.95 acres of land executed by Hatapatta dated 25.1.1933 by erstwhile intermediaries i.e. Chakradhar Mohapatra and Ramakrushna Mohapatra in favour of one Kamala Devi. The respondent Harapriya Bishoi claimed to be the successor in interest of Kamala Devi. Undisputedly, the alleged Hatapatta is an unregistered document. The land is presently situated in the capital city of Bhubaneswar in the State of Orissa. The purported Hatapatta described the land as being for permanent cultivation but as per records or rights published in 1930-31 the land is classified as "uncultivable" within Anabadi Land. The land is further described as Jhudi jungle i.e. bushy forest. The estate of intermediaries Chakradhar Mohapatra and Ramakrushna Mohapatra is vested in the State by virtue of a Notification dated 1.5.1954 issued under Section 3 of the Orissa Estate Abolition Act, 1951 (in short the `Act'). In respect of the land in question the Orissa Estate Abolition Case 4 of 1970 was registered. Originally the case was registered as OEA 18 of 1967 with OEA Collector, Cuttack. On transfer of certain villages from Cuttack district to Puri District, the case was transferred to OEA Collector, Bhubneshwar and was re-numbered as OEA Case No. 4 of 1970.
By order dated 6.1.1971 in the said OEA case the OEA Collector set aside the disputed lease deed on the ground of not being genuine. The Collector found that since the lands were lying fallow, the rent receipts were not genuine. The Ekpadia or Zamabandi Register in the Tahsil Officer had no mention of Kamala Devi as a lessee. The lease was unregistered even though vast tracts of land were transferred. It was thus held that the lease deed was back dated and was created with the object of defeating the purpose of the Act. The said order dated 6.1.1971 was upheld by Additional District Magistrate, Puri by order dated 28.5.1974.
Between the period 1962 to 1973 settlement proceedings were carried out under the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 (in short the `Settlement Act'). By publication dated 6.12.1973, the State was recorded as the owner/title holder of the entire land of 1056.8 acres under Khatian No. 1076 of village Gadakana of which the disputed land is a part. Further, by Revenue Department Notification No. 13699-EA-1- ND-1/74/R published i........