JUDGMENT I. M. QUDDUSI, J. — By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the impugned order dated 19.2.2000 passed by the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Central Division, Cuttack in Resumption Case No.2 of 1996 agreeing with the Collector’s recommendation for cancellation of lease and resumption of the land in question and directing taking up pos¬session immediately to prevent further loss to the Government. 2. The petitioner No.1 is a society duly registered under the law and engaged as a non Government Organization inter alia in education and social upliftment of the weaker sections and also runs educational institution for imparting inter alia +3 degree, social work course and is affiliated to the Utkal Univer¬sity. The petitioner No.1 was granted a lease of land through a lease deed dated 2nd July, 1988 by the State Government possession of which was taken and the petitioners made develop¬ment work also and put in a compound wall. But as the same was earlier leased out for quarrying stone that left ditches evidenc¬ing that the stones have been taken away, for which huge costs were required huge cost for filling. However a patta was given to the petitioner and the petitioner has been paying the land reve¬nue. It had also prepared it’s plans to construct the building and has already built a building where it runs the graduate and under graduate colleges for which on 13th May, 1995 the petition¬er institution received Baba Saheb Ambedkar Award. The land taken by the petitioner No.1 was earmarked to have the graduate college in the event a deemed University status is given which requires segregation of undergraduate and post graduate studies and research studies. The petitioner is also having two under¬graduate classes in the Tribal areas at Phulbani and Sundargarh. At Bhubaneswar also they are having the undergraduate class in the same post graduate complex. 3. The petitioner is also having two under¬graduate classes in the Tribal areas at Phulbani and Sundargarh. At Bhubaneswar also they are having the undergraduate class in the same post graduate complex. 3. The State Government had issued a policy to allot piece of land to the educational institution and vide Government Order dated 23rd May 1977 the Government had been pleased to decide that Government land required for private colleges and schools shall be given free of premium to different categories of insti¬tutions to the extent indicated as under : Categories of Institutions Extent of land to be allotted Urban area Rural area M.E. School Not exceeding Not exceeding two acres three acres Secondary School Not exceeding Not exceeding three acres five acres Colleges Not exceeding Not exceeding ten acres fifteen acres The petitioner’s institution was allowed three acres of land for its post graduate college in an urban area and for a separate under graduate college it was allotted 5 acres of land in rural area as against its entitlement of 7 acres and 15 acres of land respectively. There are many institutions in these areas which have been allotted land much more than what they actually needed. 4. It may be noted here that according to the policy laid down by the Government, the allotment has not been made to the Society and to the institution separately. 5. A plea has been taken by the opposite parties that it also acquired three acres of land in village Chandrasekharpur. It is relevant to mention here that pursuant to the notice purported to be under Section 3-B of the OGLS Act, the petitioner appeared before the Collector and raised the point of maintainability of the proceeding on the ground that since the land in question is situated in Patia comes within the jurisdiction of Director of Estates, G.A. Department, the aforesaid proceeding is not main¬tainable in law. Accordingly the General Administration Depart¬ment was impleaded as a party and submitted its reply. In the reply the G.A. Department submitted that the lessee was allotted with three acres of land in village Chandrasekharpur by the G.A. Department which is also used by them for imparting education. On 30.12.1988 a lease deed was executed and possession of the said property situated in Chandrasekharpur was handed over to the petitioner on 7.1.1989. In the reply the G.A. Department submitted that the lessee was allotted with three acres of land in village Chandrasekharpur by the G.A. Department which is also used by them for imparting education. On 30.12.1988 a lease deed was executed and possession of the said property situated in Chandrasekharpur was handed over to the petitioner on 7.1.1989. However, by the time of the handing over the said land G.A. Department was not aware of the fact of settlement of the case land which has also been allotted to the petitioner-institution for the very same purpose. In fact, the aforesaid fact of settlement of the Government land in Mouza Patia has been deliberately suppressed by the petitioner and the same came to light only when the petitioner applied for exchange of the land to the G.A. Department. 6. The basis of cancellation of lease deed is without considering that educational institution can have according to the policy as mentioned above lands separately in urban areas as well as rural areas. If any land has been allotted to an educa¬tional institution in rural areas, there is no restriction that separate land cannot be allotted to that institution in urban area. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that a local persons by name Kishore Rout has filed Misc.Case No.378 of 1999 in the Civil Court of Bhubaneswar claiming his right, title and possession over the land in question by submitting forged documents and the forgery was confirmed by the office of Board of Revenue and one builder with the help of said Rout is creating problem in the construction work. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that cancellation of lease will result in the closure of College, which has been running for the last 15 years and deprive 100 of students belonging to Sched¬uled Caste and Scheduled Tribe of education and employment. 7. In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the averments made by the opposite parties that the lease land was obtained through fraud is not sustainable in the eye of law. 7. In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the averments made by the opposite parties that the lease land was obtained through fraud is not sustainable in the eye of law. If the petitioner’s institution had acquired three acres of land in village Chandrasekharpur, the same could not have been counted towards the land acquired in urban area or in rural area, as the case may be, as the total area was not exceeding the norms fixed by the State Government as mentioned in paragraph-3 above. 8. Since the basis of cancellation of lease deed is un¬founded and is merely contrary to the policy of the State Govern¬ment, as mentioned above, we are of the opinion that the impugned order of cancellation of lease deed be quashed. Therefore, we allow this writ petition and quash the impugned order of cancel¬lation of lease deed. The petitioner’s institution shall be allowed to run on the norms fixed in the lease deed. However in case any of the conditions could not be fulfilled by the peti¬tioners institution, as mentioned in the lease deed in the mean¬time, the opposite parties will allow reasonable time to the petitioners to make compliance of those conditions. SANJU PANDA, J. I agree. Petition allowed.