JUDGMENT : P.K. Tripathy, J. - Petitioner has filed the writ petition with the following prayer: The Petitioner, therefore prays that your Lordship shall graciously be pleased to admit the matter and issue Rule Nisi to the O. Ps. calling upon them to show cue or show sufficient cause making the rule absolute against them by issuing appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions quashing the Annexure-12 and direct the O. Ps. to grant formal lease of 250 acres in village Bara pita, Giringaput and Haripur to the Petitioner-society by executing necessary lease deed and till then respect the present possession of the Society in regard to 250 acres as indicated above, and Pass such other order/or orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice, equity and good conscious. 2. Without much disputes on the dates of liquidation, revocation, supersession and restoration of the Co-operative Society, Barmunda Joint Farming Co-operative Society Ltd. i.e. the Petitioner, contention of both the parties goes to indicate that such a Co-operative Society was constituted and registered and functioned intermittently. There is no dispute between the parties that an area of Ac.82.125 decs. in village Barapita, Ac.158.025 decs. in village-Haripur and Ac.9.850 in village Giringaput was decided by the Government to be given to the Petitioner Society. In total that land measures Ac.250.000 decs. It is also the admitted position on record that though the Petitioner Society was registered in 1953, yet the lease deed has not been executed with respect to the aforesaid Ac.250.000 of the landed property transferring the rights and interest in favour of said Co-operative Society. It is also not disputed at the Bar that the aforesaid land in the aforesaid three villages has become part and parcel of the Capital City of the State i.e. Bhubaneswar. 3. Aforesaid admitted factual position is readable from the contention of the parties in the writ petition, counter affidavits, rejoinder affidavits, additional affidavit and the annexed documents. It is stated by the Petitioner that the Society paid part of the lease amounts in favour of the Government, but on the ground of defects/deficiencies in complying with direction of the Government in furtherance of execution of the lease deed, that it has not so far executed the lease deed. Therefore, the position on record shows that there has been no transfer of the land in accordance with law in favour of the Petitioner-Society. Therefore, the position on record shows that there has been no transfer of the land in accordance with law in favour of the Petitioner-Society. 4. Mr. P.K. Ray, learned Counsel for the Petitioner argued that when substantial part of the lease amount has been deposited, though on different dates in different years, but the inaction of the Government to execute the lease deed was because of technical approach adopted by the bureaucrats and under such circumstance, the legitimate expectation of the Petitioner to get the land has been frustrated and more so when under Annexure-12 Petitioner-Society was intimated that Government has decided to settle the case land with B.D.A. i.e. Bhubaneswar Development Authority. He further argues that the effort of the members of the Co operative Society to get the lease deed executed by the Government was somehow or other delayed and ultimately defeated. Accordingly, he argued to quash Annexure-12 and to issue writ of mandamus directing the State to execute the lese deed and to pass other consequential order. 5. Learned Counsel for the State, on the other hand, argued that the purpose for which the Society was constituted is readable from the Byelaws. Inter alia, the Society's aim to work for development on agricultural sector and the ancillary activities such as pisciculture, paultry etc. Originally, the disputed property was either the surplus land acquired for the purpose of construction of the Capital City of the State or the land reclaimed by the State for the same purpose. It is the Petitioner society, which became defunct and therefore in the year 1964, it was liquidated and finally dissolved in 1976. Though latter on in the year 1993 it was revived for election, but the Co-operative Society has remained defunct and it does not carry any of the activities, for which the Petitioner-Society was formed and registered. To add to that, even the Society does not possess any record relating to the registers of membership, accounts registers etc. In other words, opposite parties state that virtually Petitioner-Society is a defunct Co-operative Society. He further argued that the land could not be leased out to the Petitioner-Society because of default on the part of the Society to deposit the residual amount of rupees thirty thousand and not because of any other reason and Petitioner cannot overcome that aspect by throwing blame on the State or its officers. He further argued that the land could not be leased out to the Petitioner-Society because of default on the part of the Society to deposit the residual amount of rupees thirty thousand and not because of any other reason and Petitioner cannot overcome that aspect by throwing blame on the State or its officers. He further argued that in the meantime, the case land has become valuable urban land and it is necessary for the government to make the development of the Bhubaneswar City, therefore, no more the Government can permit it for undertaking agricultural activities. He further argued that above all when the Petitioner-Society did not at all executed the lease deed by pursuing the matter diligently, their argument in throwing the blame on the Government or the officers is not only false but also that has been advanced to overcome the weakness and deficiency with the Petitioner-Society. He further submitted that the report of the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar in letter No. 6450 dated 20.08.2000, which has been considered by this Court on 11.09.2002 goes to show that about Ac.70.000 is lying fellow, about Ac.100.000 are being unauthorisedly possessed by different persons (encroachers) and about Ac.80.000 is in possession of Derash Agricultural Firm of Agricultural Department. He argued that because of the pendency of the litigations and the stay order being in force, no appropriate steps could be taken to tackle the aforesaid problems in proper manner. He also argued that in 1991 when the case land was taken possession by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar and it was decided to hand over the same to Bhubaneswar Development Authority for developmental purpose, such action of the State is not illegal and under the given facts and circumstance, the claim of the Petitioner Society does not come within the scope of legitimate expectation. 6. Upon hearing the parties, we find that we need not address ourselves to the factual disputes about the numbers of time the Co-operative Society was superseded and the manner of its revival, inasmuch as, the crux of the matter is as to whether, the State Government should settle the land in favour of the Bhubaneswar Development Authority when at the earliest point that is in 1956, there was a proposal to lease out this land to the Petitioner-Society and whether the legitimate expectation of the Petitioner in that regard has been frustrated. 7. 7. In course of hearing of the writ petition, we wanted to see the records and documents maintained by the Petitioner-Society so as to take note of the activities of the Society as against criticism of the State that the Society has become defunct. Mr. Ray, learned Counsel for the Petitioner on 7.5.2008 filed an affidavit stating therein that "3. That in course of the argument the Hon'ble Court directed the deponent Advocate-counsel to submit the relevant records of the Baramunda Joint Farming Co-operative Society Ltd. and, the same was submitted to the Hon'ble Court by the deponent advocate along with his written notes on 17.4.2002 and the State was directed to file rejoinder and relevant documents. On perusal of the record, we do not find existence of any order or endorsement either on 17.04.2002 or on any subsequent date that Petitioner filed any document. It also appears from the order No. 14 dated 17.4.2002 that hearing was not completed and it was adjourned to subsequent dates for further hearing after providing opportunity for filing counter to the rejoinder. On the other hand, it is seen from the order sheets that on 10.4.2002, Petitioner was directed to furnish information on land acquisition and payment of compensation etc. Accordingly, on 17.4.2002 Petitioner filed the rejoinder. Notwithstanding the aforesaid fact situation, in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the said affidavit, it has been stated that "5. That the present Hon'ble Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court during hearing stated in Court today i.e. 07.05.2008 to the deponent advocate that the relevant original records of the Baramunda Joint Farming Co-operative Society Ltd. was not available on the records. 6. That in the fact situation the deponent-advocate who had submitted the aforesaid relevant original proceeding records available with the society puts on records on testimony of Oath, that he himself had personally handed/submitted the relevant original records available with him of the Baramunda Joint Farming Co-operative Society Ltd. before the aforesaid Hon'ble Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court." 8. When we wanted to see records and registers in furtherance of the argument of the Petitioner that the Petitioner society is not defunct and it is carrying on the activities, on perusal of the above quoted affidavit it gives the impression that Petitioner had filed relevant documents on 17.04.2002, but the same is missing from the record. When we wanted to see records and registers in furtherance of the argument of the Petitioner that the Petitioner society is not defunct and it is carrying on the activities, on perusal of the above quoted affidavit it gives the impression that Petitioner had filed relevant documents on 17.04.2002, but the same is missing from the record. As we find, things did not happen that way. The aforesaid circumstance gives sufficient reasons to infer that the Petitioner does not have any records or documents to substantiate its contention regarding functional condition of the Society. If contention in the affidavit is correct and the Society is carrying on the activities, then Petitioner could have produced documents, i.e. records and registers, which are being maintained by the Society on and after 17.04.2002. On the other hand, it emerges on record from Annexure-4 that some original documents/records and registers of the Society were seized on 3.1.1972 and Petitioner stated that such documents are no more traceable and in that respect, the Society blames the departmental staffs. When that is the state of affairs, Petitioner has not stated if they got back such records and filed the same before the Court on 17.04.2002. Above all, Petitioner does not furnish the list of document and records, which were filed in the court on 17.04.2002. At least, if the list would have been available then it could have been judged, whether the Petitioner is speaking about any relevant document, which we intended to peruse. For the reasons stated above, we do not believe the Petitioner that documents and records of the Society which we wanted to peruse were filed in Court on 17.04.2002. 9. We find that when the Petitioner did not fulfill its part by making timely deposit of the amount, inter alia which was a condition precedent for transferring the land on lease and did not take requisite steps timely for the purpose of obtaining the lease deed, it cannot throw the blame on the State for non-execution of the lease deed. The left out formalities were not pursued by the Petitioner at appropriate time and ultimately when the Society was superseded for having no activities, on 3.6.1991, Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar took over possession of the case land from the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bhubaneswar who was in-charge of the Society after it being dissolved in 1976. The left out formalities were not pursued by the Petitioner at appropriate time and ultimately when the Society was superseded for having no activities, on 3.6.1991, Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar took over possession of the case land from the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bhubaneswar who was in-charge of the Society after it being dissolved in 1976. Such act of the Tahasildar and the A.R.C.S. cannot be termed as illegal. 10. The report of the Tahasildar indicates that the property was then (in 2002) being utilized for agricultural purpose because of the cultivation by the encroachers and possession of Ac.80.000 of land by Derash Agriculture Firm of Agriculture Department. By lapse of time, township of the City has spread all around and the land might have assumed both potency and importance for development of the Capital city. Be that as it may, when the act of resumption by the Stage Government in the year 1991 is not shown to be illegal, therefore, action as stated in Annexure-12 does not call for quashment. Petitioner does not whisper any thing against resumption of the land in 1991 and therefore, as stated above, the proposal of the State to hand over the case land to Bhubaneswar Development Authority does not call for any interference. Apart from that when the Government in its wisdom has thought of providing the land to the Bhubaneswar Development Authority for development of the City, that order cannot per se be found to be illegal. 11. Contention of the Petitioner relating to possession on the basis of proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure is not binding on the State, because it was not a party in that proceeding. Be that as it may, the order of resumption in 1991, in any event, supersedes that order. Apart from that, report of the Tahasildar, as already discussed, indicates that the land is being possessed otherwise, then in the matter the finding was recorded by learned Executive Magistrate as back as on 2.8.1969. We are to consider that fact of position as well while considering the aforesaid prayer of the Petitioner. 12. A person who claims relief on the principle legitimate expectation, has to satisfy the court that in the matter of dealing with the subject in dispute he has done all that could have been performed by him and expecting reciprocity from the other side and that expectation is not fulfilled. 12. A person who claims relief on the principle legitimate expectation, has to satisfy the court that in the matter of dealing with the subject in dispute he has done all that could have been performed by him and expecting reciprocity from the other side and that expectation is not fulfilled. In the case in hand, had the Petitioner-Society performed its part of activities for getting the lease deed executed and in spite of that the opposite party denies to lese out the land contrary to the commitment, then the Petitioner could have approached the Court to grant the relief on the principle of legitimate expectation. From the facts on record and discussion of the different facts and circumstance, we find that Petitioner cannot claim for settlement of the case land on lease basis. 13. For the reasons stated above, we find that the Petitioner is not entitled to any of the relieves claimed and therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. Under the given facts and circumstance, parties are directed to bear their respective costs of litigation. It goes without saying that the interim order of stay passed on 7.10.1994 on Ext.12, stands vacated. A.K. Parichha, J. 14. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed