JUDGMENT Dr.D.P. CHOUDHURY, J. - Challenge has been made to the order of cancellation of lease dated 19.2.1999 and proceeding of the Resumption Case No.1 of 1998. FACTS. 2. The unshorn details of the of the petitioners is that the original petitioner Pruthweeraj Patnaik being a qualified and experienced Chemical Engineer had gained special knowledge in the manufacture of essential oils at the Central Institute of Medicines and Aromatic Plants, Bangalore in 1979. So, desiring to establish an industry by growing aromatic/Peimarosa plant and extracting oil from the plants to export same applied to the Government through the Department of Revenue & Excise for leasing out 100 acres of land and petitioner took advance possession of said 100 acres of case land from State Government. But State Government leased out 50 acres of case land out of said 100 acres of case land to the petitioner. The State Government had transferred said 100 acres of forest land from the Forest Department to the Revenue Department. 3. Be it stated that in pursuance of the letter of the State Government he deposited Rs.49,500/- towards the premium of the case land in one instalment. The Additional District Magistrate vide letter dated 30.7.1988 informed the said fact to the State Government in Revenue Department. Accordingly, letter was issued for execution of lease agreement, also the Tahasidlar vide letter dated 29.8.1988 asked the original petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 1,254/- towards the ground rent and cess which was also complied by the petitioner. Thereafter registered lease deed was executed conveying 50 acres of land in favour of the petitioner. 4. Be it stated that after the Scheme being approved, the petitioner had approached the State Bank of India for financial assistance to establish his factory to which said Bank agreed for assistance to the tune of Rs.2,91,300/- in June, 1980. In spite of hardship, the petitioner started his work in full swing and utilized 40 acres of land for cultivation of Arometic plantations and made necessary construction of the industry as well as installed the machineries. But the progress was crippled as the State Bank of India did not cooperate fully for which a Consumer Dispute Case No.113 of 1991 was started. 5. But the progress was crippled as the State Bank of India did not cooperate fully for which a Consumer Dispute Case No.113 of 1991 was started. 5. While the matter stood thus, petitioner received a show cause notice from the Collector in 1998 as to why the lease sanctioned would not be cancelled due to non-progress of the industrial activity. Inspite of the show cause by the petitioner stating that he had already completed plantation over 40 acres of land as per lease agreement, learned Collector passed order to suggest the Government for resumption of the land in Resumption Case No.1 of 1998.After receiving the certified copy of the order passed by the learned Collector, the petitioner came to know that there was violation of the terms and conditions stipulated in Clause (1), (2) and (4) of the lease agreement but in that regard the petitioner was never asked to show cause. 6. It is stated that the petitioner was only asked to show cause as to why he had not executed the lease deed, as to why he had not planted Aromatic plantations within a period of three years from the date of execution of the lease and as to why the petitioner has not utilized the land for the purpose it was sanctioned. But surprisingly the order in question in determining the lease is passed on some other reason for which the petitioner was never called to show cause. Since natural justice of the petitioner has been violated, the said order is liable to be quashed. As the action taken by the opposite parties violating the mandatory provisions of the lease deed, such action amounts to colourable exercise of power which is not structured by any rational consideration. The Tahasildar also did not receive the rent offered by the petitioner on the ground that the lands have not been recorded in the name of the petitioner. But the fact remains that since lease deed has been executed and registered, the record should automatically be mutated in favour of the petitioner so that the Tahasildar should receive the rent. As the principle of natural justice and equity of the petitioner has been violated, the action of the State Government is per se illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the writ petition. 7. Per contra, opposite party No.1 filed counter refusing the averments made in the writ petition. As the principle of natural justice and equity of the petitioner has been violated, the action of the State Government is per se illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the writ petition. 7. Per contra, opposite party No.1 filed counter refusing the averments made in the writ petition. It is the case of the opposite party No.1 that the petitioner has committed breach of agreed terms and conditions stipulated in Item Nos. (i), (ii), (iv) and (viii) of the Sanction Order No.65268/R dated 28.9.1984 and No.36774/R. Dated 26.6.1987 and Clauses 1, 4 (i), 6 and 8 of the lease deed. Moreover, the petitioner has been given due opportunity of being heard before determination of the lease. 8. Be it stated that the petitioner was sanctioned lease on 50 acres of land in village Jagannath Prasad under Bhubaneswar Tahasil for raising medicinal and aromatic plants for manufacture of essential oils vide order No.65268/R. Dated 28.9.1984 and No.36774/R. Dated 26.6.1987.The State Government in Revenue and Excise Department vide Sanction order dated 28.9.1984 had fixed premium of Rs.4,95,000/- with a condition of 10% of premium to be paid at the time of taking over possession and the balance 90% is to be paid in five equal instalments after expiry of a moratorium of 24 months. Although the petitioner has paid the first instalment of the market value but had not paid beyond the required percentage of premium. Also in spite of the revised order the petitioner has not paid the amount of premium with the Tahasildar as per the revised order issued on 26.6.1987 for Rs.1,380/- per acre in pursuance of provisions of I.P.R. 1979-83. It is admitted by the opposite parties that lease deed was also executed on 1.10.1988 for 90 years and registered on 20.12.1988.The State Government is not aware about the application of the petitioner for sanction of loan by the State Bank of India. Lease deed was executed with certain terms and conditions particularly with the stipulation that infringement of any of the conditions would result in immediate reversion of land to Government in Revenue Department free from all encumbrances without payment of any compensation for the land and for the structure. Due to infringement of the conditions of the sanction order, a notice to show cause was issued to the petitioner. Due to infringement of the conditions of the sanction order, a notice to show cause was issued to the petitioner. It is stated that on field inspection report, the Additional District Magistrate found that the land was not used by following the terms and conditions of the lease deed and the sanction order. 9. It is further averred in the counter by the opposite party No.1 that the petitioner filed show cause explaining the reasons for non-fulfilment of the conditions in the Resumption Case No.1 of 1998. Although the field enquiry was held by the learned Additional District Magistrate in presence of the petitioner, petitioner refused to sign in the enquiry report. However, the learned Collector after considering the explanation furnished by the petitioner, filed enquiry report of the A.D.M., Khurda and other documents recommended to the Government for determination of the lease in lieu of breach of conditions of the lease. After receipt of the Government order, the learned Collector issued direction to the Tahasildar to resume the land after observing all the formalities and on 27.2.1999 the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar took over possession of the land. So, there is no any irregularity in resumption of the case land. 10. Opposite Party Nos.4 and 5 have filed counter affidavit stating that the State Government has taken over possession of the land in question, i.e., Plot Nos.1270, 1271, 1272 and 1280 of Khata No.469 of mouza Jagannath Prasad since 27.2.1999 but the interim order of status quo was passed for the first time on 4.3.1999. It is averred that the land in question is a part of Jagannath Prasad Demarcated Projected Forest of Chandaka Wild Life Division, Bhubaneswar. The State Government in Forest, Fisheries & Animal Husbandry Department have declared the entire Jagannath Prasad D.P.F. as Chandaka-Damapara Wild Life Sanctuary and the disputed land is within the Sanctuary. So, the averments of the petitioner that he has done the plantation work over the land in question, is incorrect and wrong. Rather, one Siba Pradhan, who is the henchman of the petitioner dug earth for cultivation, he was prosecuted by the Forest Departmen 11. So, the averments of the petitioner that he has done the plantation work over the land in question, is incorrect and wrong. Rather, one Siba Pradhan, who is the henchman of the petitioner dug earth for cultivation, he was prosecuted by the Forest Departmen 11. It is further case of the Opposite Party Nos.4 and 5 as available from the counter affidavit that on 21.12.1982 in exercise of power conferred under Section 18 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, there was boundary of the Sanctuary in which the present case land is situated. Subsequently on 10.6.1988 said boundary was modified but there is no reallocation of the schedule land and same continued to remain in the Sanctuary under Section 18 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act. Under Section 20 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, no person can claim any right over the said land except by way of succession both testamentary and intestate. So, the petitioner has no right to claim such land. Since the petitioner has failed to fulfil the conditions within a period of six months from the date of order of lease, the lease has been determined. Hence, the petitioner has no claim over the suit land. 12. The petitioner filed rejoinder reiterating the allegations made in the writ petition. Further it is added in the rejoinder that in order to lease out 100 acres of land from Jagannath Prasad D.P,.F. of Chandaka Range in Puri district, the said land was ousted from the forest area to lease out same in favour of the petitioner. The advance possession has also been given by the Government of Orissa in Revenue Department vide letter No.GEC (Puri)-49/78-3987/R dated May, 1979.The original petitioner is the proprietor of M/s. Sun Industrial Chemicals, Bhubaneswar which was registered under Small Scale Industry. The petitioner has constructed infrastructures such as bore well, pumps, power connection, a processing machinery by 1985 and the Unit got production of essential oil started, in spite of the financial constraints. The then Revenue Secretary-cum-Commissioner had inspected the plantation site and express his satisfaction over the plantation work. But after long 18 years, petitioner got a notice from the learned Collector, Cuttack to his surprise. 13. The then Revenue Secretary-cum-Commissioner had inspected the plantation site and express his satisfaction over the plantation work. But after long 18 years, petitioner got a notice from the learned Collector, Cuttack to his surprise. 13. In the rejoinder it has been specifically asserted that the learned A.D.M., Khurda made field visit without any notice to the petitioner for which there is violation of natural justice while challenging the inspection report of the learned A.D.M. It is specifically averred that the learned Collector adjourned the Resumption Case No.1 of 1998 on 2.8.1998 but without knowledge of the petitioner he preponed the case to 26.10.1998 and passed the final order on 3.11.1998 without any intimation to the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner was not given reasonable opportunity of being heard before determining the lease. The petitioner also asserts that he has paid more than the amount stipulated in keeping with the modified valuation in pursuance of the sanction order. Although the petitioner was again ready to pay the rent but the R.I. refused to receive the rent for the reason best known to him. It is stated that the office of the Tahasildar although received rent and cess till 1989 it failed to issue direction to the concerned R.I. to collect rent and cess. Thus, the petitioner has been harassed in many ways, 14. it is asserted by the petitioner that he has never violated Clause (V) of the sanction order corresponding to Clause-6 of the lease deed, Clause (VI) of the sanction order corresponding to Clause-8 of the lease deed, Clause (VIII) of the sanction order which is corresponding to Clause-9 of the lease deed, Clause-4 (1) and Clause 4 V (1) of the lease deed. 15. Since there are procedural lapses in the Resumption Case No.1 of 1998 as well as there is violation of natural justice by not giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the initiation of Resumption Case No.1 of ;1998 is illegal and improper. By virtue of this, the fundamental right of the petitioner under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India has been seriously violated. Not only this but also the impugned order being de hors to Article 21 of the Constitution, the same is liable to be quashed. SUBMISSIONS. 16. By virtue of this, the fundamental right of the petitioner under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India has been seriously violated. Not only this but also the impugned order being de hors to Article 21 of the Constitution, the same is liable to be quashed. SUBMISSIONS. 16. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has applied for 100 acres of land for raising the medicinal and Aromatic plants to manufacture essential oil in 1973 and on 23.2.1978 the Government in Forest Department decided to carve out 100 acres of land from Jagannath Prasad Demarcated Protected Forest of Chandaka Range in order to lease out the same in favour of the petitioner subject to payment of compensatory plantation and the value of the forest growth and accordingly the advance possession was given to the petitioner. In May 1979, the State Government sanctioned 100 acres of forest land of Jagannath Prasad Demarcated Protected Forest which has been reserved for industrial development in favour of the petitioner for manufacture of essential medicinal oil. 17. Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner further submitted that the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 came into force in December, 1980 but the forest land has been already taken out to the Revenue Department and then leased out to the petitioner. As the formalities of deposit of money and execution of lease deed took some years at the instant of State, the lease deed was executed between the petitioner and the State Government on 1.10.1988. As the sanction has been already made and the possession of the case land has been already delivered to the petitioner before the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 came into force, the said Act could not be made applicable to the petitioner. He relied on the decision reported in 2007 (3) MPHT 429 ; Kashiram Dehalwar and another v. Union of India and others. 18. Mr. Mohanty further submitted that to the utter surprise, on 16.4.1988 the Revenue Department issued letter for initiation of Resumption proceeding against the petitioner and the petitioner challenged the same in this writ application. According to him, in the meantime the petitioner suffered from financial crunch due to inaction of the State Bank of India for sanctioning loan in time. Mr. Mohanty further submitted that to the utter surprise, on 16.4.1988 the Revenue Department issued letter for initiation of Resumption proceeding against the petitioner and the petitioner challenged the same in this writ application. According to him, in the meantime the petitioner suffered from financial crunch due to inaction of the State Bank of India for sanctioning loan in time. But the petitioner has already commenced the plantation over the 40 acres of land as per the terms and conditions of lease for 50 acres of case land to the petitioner and also made construction lover the portion of the case land to manufacture medicinal oil. The Collector, Khurda without giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner recommended to the State Government to cancel the lease in Resumption Proceeding No.1 of 1988. 19. It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the allegation of the State Government to resume the case land is mainly on the ground that the petitioner has not executed lease deed within stipulated time, petitioner has not converted 40 acres of land under aromatic plantation within a period of three years from the date of sanction and petitioner has not utilized the land for the purpose it is sanctioned and the petitioner has not deposited the premium and interest thereon. All these allegations are strongly refuted by the petitioner in his explanation submitted to the Collector. The Collector without any notice to the petitioner conducted the field enquiry by the A.D.M. which is also violation of natural justice to the petitioner. Mr. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner has already made representation to the Collector stating about compliance of the terms and conditions and same has been also well viewed in the A.D.M. report although it was prepared in absence of the petitioner. So, the Collector without any justifiable reasons or speaking order recommended for cancellation of the lease. However, on 19.2.1999 the Government without any hearing extended to the petitioner, basing on the report of the Collector directed the Collector to resume the leasehold property due to violation of Clauses 9 and 10 of the lease deed. So, the Collector without any justifiable reasons or speaking order recommended for cancellation of the lease. However, on 19.2.1999 the Government without any hearing extended to the petitioner, basing on the report of the Collector directed the Collector to resume the leasehold property due to violation of Clauses 9 and 10 of the lease deed. Since the order of resumption of the Government is totally against the natural justice of the petitioner and same also violates the fundamental right of the petitioner as enshrined under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution, same is liable to be quashed. 20. Mr. Mohanty further submitted that the D.F.O., Chandaka Wild Life Division and Range Officer, Chandaka Wild Life Range, who are arrayed as opposite party Nos. 4 and 5 forcibly entered the leasehold and tried to dispossess in 2007 and due to such Act of the D.F.O., the activities of the opposite party again came under challenge. 21. Mr. Mohanty submitted that once the State Government carved out the case land to the Revenue Department from the Forest Department, the notification of Forest Department as Wild Life Sanctuary under Annexure-A/4 is gross violation of the legal provision. Moreover, when status quo order is already implemented, it is none of the business of the State Government in Forest Department to declare same as Wild Life area under Annexure-A/4. Apart from this, the notification relied on by opposite party Nos.4 and 5 did not per se contain the case land. While summing up the contention, Mr. Mohanty submitted that the action of the opposite parties against the petitioner amounts to gross violation of the principle of natural justice of the petitioner and the legal provision of lease principle. Moreover, in no way the Forest Conservation Act or any Forest law do stand on the way for granting lease in favour of the petitioner. So, he prayed to quash the proceeding under Resumption Case No.1 of 1998 and uphold the lease granted in favour of the petitioner. 22. Mr. Bhuyan, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the original petitioner had requested for lease of 100 acres of land for Aromatic plantation and manufacture of oil and in fact the State Government has sanctioned same. So, he prayed to quash the proceeding under Resumption Case No.1 of 1998 and uphold the lease granted in favour of the petitioner. 22. Mr. Bhuyan, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the original petitioner had requested for lease of 100 acres of land for Aromatic plantation and manufacture of oil and in fact the State Government has sanctioned same. But 50 acres of land was leased out to the petitioner for 90 years with terms and conditions that same could be utilized for the purpose it is prayed for subject to deposit of compensatory cost for deforestation and ancillary expenses. According to him, in 1980 the Forest Conservation Act came into force. It was the part of terms and conditions to deposit a compensatory cost within certain period and to execute lease deed within three years from the date of sanction. But the petitioner delayed the matter in depositing necessary cost and also delayed for execution of the registered lease deed and in fact in 1988 the lease deed could be executed. Not only this but also there were terms and conditions that at least 40 acres of case land must have plantationed within three years of the sanction of the lease. But the petitioner is found guilty of violation of terms and conditions of the lease granted in favour of the petitioner. There was also terms and conditions that in case the petitioner is found to have violated any of the terms and conditions, the concerned land would be resumed and simultaneously the lease would be cancelled. 23. Mr. Bhuyan, learned Additional Government Advocate further submitted that since the petitioner has not complied the terms and conditions as stated above, the State Government passed order to resume the case land vide Resumption Case No.1 of 1998 and on his part of rival submission maintained that the petitioner has been issued with necessary show cause and he has submitted the explanation which is not satisfactory to the Collector, Khurda. Since the petitioner has been given adequate opportunity of being heard, the question of violation of natural justice does not arise. 24. Mr. Since the petitioner has been given adequate opportunity of being heard, the question of violation of natural justice does not arise. 24. Mr. Bhuyan, learned Additional Government Advocate contended that while there is delay in complying the terms and conditions by the petitioner, the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 (hereafter called “the Act, 1980”) came into force and as per the provisions of the Act, no forest land can be leased out or alienated in favour of any person. Same view has been also echoed in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, reported in AIR 1997 SC 1228 ; T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India and others. 25. Mr. Bhuyan, learned Additional Government Advocate further submitted that since the lease deed was not registered before commencement of the Forest Conservation Act but was only executed after such Act came into force and forest is involved in this case, as per the provisions of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, the lease itself does not confer any interest upon the petitioner. According to him, not only the State Government passed the order of resumption of the case leased but also on 19.2.1999 said case land has been occupied by the State Government and later on such case land is declared as a Sanctuary under Section 18 read with Section 20 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 (hereinafter called “the Act, 1972”). Adding this, the State Government in Forest Department has already filed forest case against the Supervisor of the petitioner for having violated the Forest Laws. In either of the way the lease in question being not in existence but having been resumed, the petition of the petitioner becomes groundless and hence liable to be rejected. 26. The main point for consideration: (i) Whether there is violation of natural justice of the petitioner for not giving reasonable opportunity of hearing while resuming the land in Resumption Case No.1 of 1988 ? (ii) Whether the lease of the case land is hit by the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 or Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 ? DISCUSSION. POINT NO. (I) 27. It is admitted fact that the petitioner approached the State Government to have cultivation of medicinal plant and to establish a factory for production of medicinal oil. (ii) Whether the lease of the case land is hit by the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 or Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 ? DISCUSSION. POINT NO. (I) 27. It is admitted fact that the petitioner approached the State Government to have cultivation of medicinal plant and to establish a factory for production of medicinal oil. It is not in dispute that 100 acres of land was transferred from Forest Department to Revenue and Disaster Management Department and accordingly 50 acres out of the said land were sanctioned under lease principle in favour of the original petitioner (Pruthweeraj Patnaik. It is not in disputer that advance possession of 50 acres of land was granted in favour of the petitioner Pruthweeraj Patnaik on 24.5.1980. 28. It appears from W.L. Case No.2339 of 1980 that after due publication of the Istahar the lease was granted under lease principle dated 24.5.1979 of the State Government, necessary formalities were maintained and finally lease was sanctioned for Plot Nos.1270, 1271, 1272 and 1280 under Khata No.469 of Mouza Jagannath Prasad measuring 50 acres of land. On 7.3.1980, the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar submitted record to the Collector, Puri and the Additional District Magistrate intimated vide letter dated 28.9.1988 to realize the ground rent, cess and interest in respect of the land allotted in favour of the petitioner. It will not be out of place to mention that on 20.12.1984 the State Government has intimated the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Central Division, Cuttack that said 50 acres of case land was sanctioned under lease principle in favour of the petitioner Pruthweeraj Patnaik with the following terms and conditions : “(i) The lessee shall have to pay 10% of the premium i.e. Rs.49,500/- at the time of taking over possession of land and balance 90% in five equal instalments after expiry of a moratorium of 24 months. (ii) The lessee shall have to pay ground rent of Rs.100/- per annum (@ Rs.1/- per acre) for the entire 100 acres till the date of resumption and thereafter Rs.50/- @ Re.1/- per acre for ;50 acres subject to revision at every settlement/revisional settlement along with usual cess and normal interest on back rent, and salami. (iii) The period of lease shall be 90 years. (iv) The lessee shall have only surface right over the land. (iii) The period of lease shall be 90 years. (iv) The lessee shall have only surface right over the land. (v) The lessee shall cover at least 40 acres of land under aromatic plantation within a period of three years from the date of execution of the lease and continue to maintain a minimum level of 40 acres of plantation thereafter during the subsistence of lease failing which the land shall be liable for resumption. (vi) The lessee shall not construct any residential colony on any part of the land except for residence of his workers nor shall use any part of land for any commercial purpose except for the purpose for which lease is granted. (vii) The land shall be utilised for the purpose for which it is sanctioned and shall not be transferred or leased out to private persons, bodies and otherwise disposed of. (viii) If the land or any part of it is not utilized for the purpose for which it is sanctioned the same shall revert to Government in the Revenue Department free from all encumbrances. (ix) Infringement of any of the conditions would result in immediate revision of the land to Government in Revenue Department free from all encumbrances without payment of any compensation for the land and for the structure if any erected thereon and for any improvement which might have been made to the land.” 29. According to these conditions the aforesaid ground rent, cess etc. has been fixed by the Additional District Magistrate. It appears from the record that the petitioner has paid the required amount towards ground rent, cess and interest and has also deposited Rs.49,500/- as premium. It is also clear from the registered lease deed that in pursuance of the sanction order of the Government, the learned Collector, Puri has executed registered lease deed in favour of the petitioner. One of the main conditions is that lessee would raise medicinal and aromatic plants for manufacture of essential oil on 40 acres of land out of the case land. So, it is clear that the State Government had leased out 50 acres of land in favour of the petitioner in W.L. Case No.2339 of 1980 under lease principle of the State Government. 30. Now the Resumption Case No.1 of 1998 is required to be discussed. So, it is clear that the State Government had leased out 50 acres of land in favour of the petitioner in W.L. Case No.2339 of 1980 under lease principle of the State Government. 30. Now the Resumption Case No.1 of 1998 is required to be discussed. To find out whether the resumption proceeding has been conducted in accordance with law or not. We have called for the original case record. The order sheet dated 30.5.1998 shows that vide Revenue and Excise Department letter No.19386 dated 16.4.1998 a direction was issued to the Collector, Khurda to start resumption case against the original petitioner Pruthweeraj Patnaik as the terms and conditions of the lease were not complied by him although he was sanctioned with lease of such land by the Government for the purpose of raising medicinal and Aromatic Plants for manufacture of essential oil. On that day, the learned Collector issued notice to show cause. The order sheet dated 26.9.1998 shows that the original petitioner appeared and sought for adjournment for which the case was fixed to 26.10.1998. on that day, the learned Collector ;again adjourned the matter to 16.11.1998. But order sheet shows that on 3.11.1998, the Collector, Khurda called for the case record without notice to petitioner and asked the A.D.M., Khurda to make field visit so as to submit the report by 16.11.1998.This conduct of the Collector is keeping the petitioner in dark to award fair justice. There is nothing found from records that the A.D.M., Khurda had issued a notice to the petitioner to remain present on the date of visit. But however the report of the A.D.M. annexed to the records shows that during field enquiry the petitioner was present and other revenue officials were also present. Again in the bottom of the report, the A.D.M. has made endorsement that the petitioner declined to sign on the report. The report dated 13.11.1998 only shows the signature of R.I., Amin and the concerned A.D.M. but no outsider. It has been also mentioned in the report that nine labourers and one supervisor of the petitioner, namely, Siba Pradhan were present. If at all the petitioner refused to sign, it does not appear why the signature of the labourers and supervisor of the petitioner were not obtained on the local field enquiry report. It has been also mentioned in the report that nine labourers and one supervisor of the petitioner, namely, Siba Pradhan were present. If at all the petitioner refused to sign, it does not appear why the signature of the labourers and supervisor of the petitioner were not obtained on the local field enquiry report. So, it cannot be said that the field enquiry was made by the learned A.D.M. at the instance of the Collector complying the natural justice of the petitioner. 31. After submission of the field visit report, the matter was dragged till 9.2.1999. On 9.2.1999 the Collector passed the following order : “9.2.99. Case taken up to day. Advocate for Pruthweeraj Patnaik filed written counter. Perused the report of A,.D.M. and the submission made by the lessee Sri Patnaik through his Advocate. After careful consideration of the case it is decided to suggest the Govt. for resumption. Send the letter to Govt. as dictated and keep a copy in the C.R. Sd/- Collector. The aforesaid order is not a speaking order because it does not spell out what are the actual grounds on which he took decision to resume the case land at the instance of the State Government. A quasi-judicial authority even if disposing of the case has to maintain minimum propriety of disposal of the case or passing of order. Any final order or interim order without any reason is not an order according to law. It must be remembered that always reasons of the orders precede the final order. However, the record shows that the petitioner has filed objection and written argument denying the grounds of notice to show cause. Moreover, the impugned order does not spell out about discussion on any submission of petitioner to show that said order was passed by adducing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. 32. It is reported in Abbott vs.Sullivan, reported in (1952) 1 K.B. 189 at 195, it is stated that the principles of natural justice are easy to proclaim, but their precise extent is far less easy to define. During the earlier days the expression Natural Justice was often used interchangeably with the expression natural Law, but in the recent times a restricted meaning has been given to describe certain rules of Judicial Procedure. During the earlier days the expression Natural Justice was often used interchangeably with the expression natural Law, but in the recent times a restricted meaning has been given to describe certain rules of Judicial Procedure. Main essential points of Natural Justice are – (1) No man shall be a Judge in his own cause, (2) Both sides shall be heard, or audi alteram partem (3) The parties to a proceedings must have due notice of which the Court/Tribunal will proceed. (4) The Court/Tribunal must act honestly and impartially and not under the dictation of other persons to whom authority is not given by Law. 33. In the decision reported in Maclean v. The Workers’ Union (1929) 1 Ch. 602, 624 it has been stated as follows : “The phrase is, of course, used only in a popular sense and must not be taken to mean that there is any justice natural among men. Among most savages there is no such thing as Justice in the modern sense. In ancient days a person wronged executed his own justice. Amongst our own ancestors, down to the thirteenth century, manifest felony, such as that of a manslayer taken with his weapon, or a thief with the stolen goods, might be punished by summary execution without any form of trial. Again, every student has heard of compurgation and of ordeal; and it is hardly necessary to observe that (for example) a system or ordeal by water in which sinking was the sign of innocence and floating the sign of guilt, a system which lasted in this country for hundreds of years, has little to do with modern ideas of justice. It is unnecessary to give further illustrations. The truth is that justice is a very elaborate conception, the growth of many centuries of civilization; and even now the conception differs widely in countries usually described as civilized”. 34. Thus, Audi Alteram Partem can be classified as under : (1) Party to an action is prima facie entitled to be heard in his presence. (2) he is entitled to dispute his opponent’s case, cross examine his opponents witnesses and entitled to call his own witnesses and give his own evidence before Court. (3) He is entitled to know the reasons for the decision rendered by a Court/Tribunal. 35. (2) he is entitled to dispute his opponent’s case, cross examine his opponents witnesses and entitled to call his own witnesses and give his own evidence before Court. (3) He is entitled to know the reasons for the decision rendered by a Court/Tribunal. 35. It is reported in Canara Bank and others v. Shri Debasis Das and others; AIR 2003 SC 2041 , relevant paragraphs of which are quoted below : “15. The adherence to principles of natural justice as recognized by all civilized States is of supreme importance when a quasi-judicial body embarks on determining disputes between the parties, or any administrative action involving civil consequences is in issue. These principles are well settled. The first and foremost principle is what is commonly known as audi alteram partem. rule. It says that no one should be condemned unheard. Notice is the first limb of this principle. It must be precise and unambiguous. It should appraise the party determinatively the case he has to meet. Time given for the purpose should be adequate so as to enable him to make his representation. In the absence of a notice of the kind and such reasonable opportunity, the order passed becomes wholly vitiated. Xxx xxx xxx 16. Principle of natural justice are those rules which have been laid down by the Courts as being the minimum protection of the rights of the individual against the arbitrary procedure that may be adopted by a judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative authority while making an order to prevent such authority from doing injustice.” 36. In the Constitution Bench reported in AIR 1990 SC 1984 ; S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, where Their Lordships have observed the following : “36.... The concept of natural justice has undergone a great deal of change in recent years. In the past it was thought that it includes just two rules namely (1) no one shall be a judge in his own cause (nemo debet esse judex propria causa) and (ii) no decision shall be given against a party without affording him a reasonable hearing (audi alteram partem).Very soon thereafter a third rule was envisaged and that is that quasi-judicial enquiries must be held in good faith, without bias and not arbitrarily or unreasonably. But in the course of years many more subsidiary rules came to be added to the rules of natural justice.” (pp.468-69) (of SCR): (at pp. But in the course of years many more subsidiary rules came to be added to the rules of natural justice.” (pp.468-69) (of SCR): (at pp. 156-57 of AIR). 37. A similar trend is discernible in the decisions of English Courts wherein it has been held that natural justice demands that the decision should be based on some evidence of probative value. (See: R. V. Deputy Industrial Injuries Commissioner ex P. Moore (1965) 1 QB 456 ; Mahon v.Air New Zealand Ltd., 1984 AC 808). 38. The object underlying the rules of natural justice “is to prevent miscarriage of justice” and secure “fair play in action.” As pointed out earlier the requirement about recording of reasons for its decision by an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions achieves this object by excluding chances of arbitrariness and ensuring a degree of fairness in the process of decision-making. Keeping in view the expanding horizon of the principles of natural justice, we are of the opinion, that the requirement to record reason can be regarded as one of the principles of natural justice which govern exercise of power by administrative authorities. The rules of natural justice are not embodied rules. The extent of their application depends upon the particular statutory framework whereunder jurisdiction has been conferred on the administrative authority. With regard to the exercise of a particular power by an administrative authority including exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial functions the legislature, while conferring the said power, may feel that it would not be in the larger public interest that the reasons for the order passed by the administrative authority be recorded in the order and be communicated to the aggrieved party and it may dispense with such a requirement.....” 37. In Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others; AIR 1978 SC 851 where Their Lordships have observed as follows : “43. Indeed natural justice is a pervasive facet of secular law where a spiritual touch enlivens legislation, administration and adjudication, to make fairness a creed of life. It has many colours and shades, many forms and shapes and, save where valid law excludes, it applies when people are affected by acts of authority. It is the bone of healthy government, recognised from earliest times and not a mystic testament of judge-made law. It has many colours and shades, many forms and shapes and, save where valid law excludes, it applies when people are affected by acts of authority. It is the bone of healthy government, recognised from earliest times and not a mystic testament of judge-made law. Indeed, from the legendary days of Adam- and of Kautilya’s Arthasastra – the rule of law has had this stamp of natural justice which makes it social justice. We need not go into these deeps for the present except to indicate that the roots of natural justice and its foilage are noble and not newfangled. Today its application must be sustained by current legislation, case-law or other extant principle not the hoary chords of legend and history. Our jurisprudence has sanctioned its prevalence even like the Anglo-American system.,” 38. The aforesaid view has also been followed in the decision reported in Bar Council of India v. High Court of Kerala; (2004) 6 SCC 311 . 39. It is reported in (2015) 2 SCC 779; Poonam v. State of U.P. and others, where Their Lordships have observed the following: “20. ln this context the authority in Sadananda Halo v. Momtaz Ali Sheikh (2008) 4 SCC 619 is quite pertinent. The Division Bench referred to the decision in All India SC & ST Employees’ Assn. V. A. Arthur Jeen; (2001) 6 SCC 380 wherein this Court had addressed the necessity in joining the necessary candidates as parties. The Court referred to the principle lof natural justice as enunciated in Canara Bank v. Debasis Das; (2003) 4 SCC 557 .We may profitably reproduce the same: (Sadananda Halo case, SCC pp.647-48, para 63). “63. ... “natural justice has been variously defined. It is another name for common sense justice. Rules of natural justice are not codified canons. But they are principles ingrained into the conscience of man. Natural justice is the administration of justice in a common sense liberal way. Justice is based substantially on natural ideals and human values. The administration of justice is to be freed from the narrow and restricted considerations which are usually associated with a formulated law involving linguistic technicalities and grammatical niceties. It is the substance of justice which has to determine its form. Justice is based substantially on natural ideals and human values. The administration of justice is to be freed from the narrow and restricted considerations which are usually associated with a formulated law involving linguistic technicalities and grammatical niceties. It is the substance of justice which has to determine its form. Principles of natural justice are those rules which have been laid down by the courts as being the minimum protection of the rights of the individual against the arbitrary procedure that may be adopted by a judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative authority while making an order affecting those rights. These rules are intended to prevent such authority from doing injustice.’ (Debasis Das case, SCC pp.560h-561a)” And again: (Sadananda Halo case, p.648, para 63). “63..... Concept of natural justice has undergone a great deal of change in recent years. Rules of natural justice are not rules embodied always expressly in a statute or in rules framed thereunder. They may be implied from the nature of the duty to be performed under a statute. What particular rule of natural justice should be implied and what its context should be in a given case must depend to a great extent on the facts and circumstances of that case, the framework of the statue under which the enquiry is held. The old distinction between a judicial act and an administrative act has withered away. The adherence to principles of natural justice as recognised by all civilised States is of supreme importance.... (Debasis Das case, SCC p.561-f)”.(emphasis in original) 21. We have referred to the aforesaid passages as they state the basic principle behind the doctrine of natural justice, that is, no order should be passed behind the back of a person who is to be adversely affected by the order. The principle behind proviso to order 1 Rule 9 that the Code of Civil Procedure enjoins it and the said principle is also applicable to the writs. An unsuccessful candidate challenging the selection as far as the service jurisprudence is concerned is bound to make the selected candidates parties.” 40. With due regard to the aforesaid decisions, it appears that natural justice is absolutely embodied in the Constitution. The compliance of natural justice depends on the facts and circumstances of the case. 41. An unsuccessful candidate challenging the selection as far as the service jurisprudence is concerned is bound to make the selected candidates parties.” 40. With due regard to the aforesaid decisions, it appears that natural justice is absolutely embodied in the Constitution. The compliance of natural justice depends on the facts and circumstances of the case. 41. It is reiterated that the petitioner was not given reasonable opportunity to attend the field enquiry and also not given opportunity of hearing while the Collector heard the Resumption Case No.1 of 1998 inasmuch as his order is silent as to the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner to have been duly considered with reasons. Be that as it may, the order dated 9.2.1999 is not only an order without any reason but also it violates the natural justice of the petitioner basing on which same is alone to be interfered with. 42. From the analogy as made by the Collector in his letter of recommendation, it appears he has relied on the enquiry report of the A.D.M. but said report is clear to show that the petitioner has put a barbed fence with installation of gate. Not only this but also there is one structure which is in dilapidated condition. He also found the labourers were in work. The A.D.M. has also found some lemon plants and brinjal plants on the plot. The plea of the petitioner that he was not given adequate finance by the S.B.I. to improve the financial condition, same fact has not been discussed by the Collector in his letter of recommendation. On the other hand, the letter of the Collector appears to be biased as he has not opined as to the action taken by the petitioner in spite of his financial crunch when he relied on the report of the A.D.M. However, the undertaking of the petitioner that he was ready to go ahead with the Aromatic plantation and medicinal plantation to solve the purpose of lease has not been well discussed in the letter of recommendation. 43. Bereft of the above finding of the A.D.., there is also explanation of the petitioner submitted to the Collector that he has paid the instalment which is admitted by the State in the counter and also has complied other formalities which should have been discussed to find out the truth with the allegation of the State. 43. Bereft of the above finding of the A.D.., there is also explanation of the petitioner submitted to the Collector that he has paid the instalment which is admitted by the State in the counter and also has complied other formalities which should have been discussed to find out the truth with the allegation of the State. The main thrust in the letter of recommendation to resume the case land because the petitioner has not used the land as for the purpose he has taken but same is not a fact in view of the field enquiry report as discussed above. On the other hand, the plea of the petitioner that prior to this inspection the Commissioner-cum-Secretary of the State Government had visited the case land and found it used for the purpose having not been discussed in the report creates doubt with the report of the Collector. 44. It appears from the material that the Collector has proceeded basing on the letter of the Government to resume the case land and after giving recommendation he again directed the Tahasildar to resume the case land. Since record shows that State Government has sanctioned the leased, it is the State Government to issue notice to show cause before determining the lease. Bt the counter of State lacks such aspect. 45. From the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that not only natural justice of the petitioner has been violated by the Collector while recommending for resumption but also the order of the Collector being without reason in spite of the explanation and field visit going on in favour of the petitioner, the said order is thus observed to be capricious and full of conjectures. So also the order of the State Government determining lease also lacks brevity for not giving reasonable opportunity to petitioner Pruthweeraj Patnaik to determine lease and resume the case land. Thus, we are of the lview that natural justice of petitioner Pruthweeraj Patnaik has been grossly violated while disposing of Resumption Case No.1 of 1998.The Point No. (I) is answered accordingly. POINT NO.(II) 46. It is admitted fact that the petitioner had filed request for sanction of lease for 100 acres of land in his favour for aromatic Plantation to manufacture medicinal oil. It is also not in dispute that from the beginning it was forest land under Demarcated Protected Forest category. POINT NO.(II) 46. It is admitted fact that the petitioner had filed request for sanction of lease for 100 acres of land in his favour for aromatic Plantation to manufacture medicinal oil. It is also not in dispute that from the beginning it was forest land under Demarcated Protected Forest category. It is also admitted fact that the State Government in Revenue Department carved out 100 acres of land by issuing necessary notification as available from the concerned file and leased out 50 acres out of such 100 acres to original petitioner. 47. The counter of the opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 do not disclose about application of Forest Conservation Act to the present case although the learned Additional Government Advocate only raised during hearing that due to enforcement of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, same Act applies to the fact of this case. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said Act, 1980 does not apply to this case as advance possession of the land has been already given prior to commencement of the Act, 1980.Thus, a point for application of such Act 1980 was framed. 48. Opposite party Nos. 4 and 5 now raised the question that the case land comes under the purview of the Sanctuary under the Act, 1972. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the case land is not within the Sanctuary. The documents filed by the opposite party Nos. 4 and 5 do not contain the leasehold plot numbers and Khata numbers. So, the opposite party Nos. 4 and 5 failed to prove that the case land is within the Sanctuary under the Act, 1972. 49. In terms of above discussion, since issue of applicability of Act 1980 has been raised during argument being not pleaded, we restrain ourselves to discuss such issue having kept on academic. The Point No. (II) is answered accordingly. CONCLUSION. 50. In the writ petition the petitioner has prayed for to quash the order of determining the lease dated 19.2.1999 vide Annexure-4 and to declare Resumption Case No.1 of 1998 as not maintainable and at the same time to show the petitioner to make good further‘ compliance of the contract if at all anything left out. 51. CONCLUSION. 50. In the writ petition the petitioner has prayed for to quash the order of determining the lease dated 19.2.1999 vide Annexure-4 and to declare Resumption Case No.1 of 1998 as not maintainable and at the same time to show the petitioner to make good further‘ compliance of the contract if at all anything left out. 51. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that Resumption Case No.1 of 1998 being disposed of by the learned Collector by violating natural justice, same does not stand and liable to be quashed and the Court do so. At the same time, Annexure-4 shows that the State Government informed the Collector, Khurda that due to infraction of Clause-9 and 10 of the Lease Deed, the Government determined the lease and directed for immediate resumption of the 50 acres of land. That order relates to 19.2.1999 which is as follows : Government of Orissa, Revenue and Excise Department. No.GE (KHD) 63/95 (P) – 10426/R., Dt. 19.2.99. From Shri D.K. Das, OAS (I) (SB) Deputy Secretary to Government. To Collector, Khurda. Sub: Resumption of 50 acres of land in village-Jagannath Prasad under Bhubaneswar Tahasil leased out to Shri Pruthiveeraj Patnaiki, Proprietor, M/s. Sun Industrial Chemicals, Bhubaneswar sanctioned vide No.65268/R., dt. 28.9.84 and No.3677/R. Dt. 26.6.87 of the Revenue Department for raising of medicinal aeromatic plants for manufacture of essential oils. Ref: Your letter No.75/Rev. Dt. 10.2.99. Sir, I am directed to invite reference to your aforesaid letter on the subject cited above and to say that after careful consideration of the report on the Show Cause furnished by Shri Pruthiveeraj Patnaik, Proprietor, M/s. Sun Industrial Chemicals, Bhubaneswar, your report dt. 10.2.99 and all facts and circumstances in the case, Government are satisfied that ; 1. conditions stipulated in item No. (i), (ii), (v), & (viii) of the Sanction order No. 65268/R., dt. 28.9.84 and No.36774/R., dt. 26.6.87 and Clause-1 4 (i), 6 & 8 of the Lease Deed have not been fulfilled by the Lessee. 2. no valid or maintainable reason exists for such non-fulfilment of the aforesaid terms and conditions of the lease. Hence, in exercise of the provisions contained in Clauses – 9 & 10 of the Lease Deed, Government have been pleased to determine the lease land order for immediate resumption of ;50 acres of land as described below along with the structures etc. Hence, in exercise of the provisions contained in Clauses – 9 & 10 of the Lease Deed, Government have been pleased to determine the lease land order for immediate resumption of ;50 acres of land as described below along with the structures etc. existing thereon without payment of any compensation. You are therefore, requested to resume and take over possession of the land along with the structures etc. standing thereon and report compliance to the Government immediately. LAND SCHEDULE. VILLAGE Khata No. PLOT NO. AREA  (IN ACRE). Jagannath Prasad 459 1270 0.240 1271 2.600 1272 16.660 1280 30.500 50.000 Yours faithfully, Sd/- Deputy Secretary to Government.” 52. The aforesaid order does not disclose any personal hearing of the petitioner. Since the personal hearing has not been made and the report of the Collector vide Resumption Case No.1 of 1998 has been knocked down due to violation of natural justice, Annexure-4 cannot be allowed to stand valid. So we are of the opinion that Annexure-4 also suffers from infirmity due to violation of natural justice of the petitioner for which same is liable to be quashed and the Court do so. Hence, we remand the matter back to the learned Collector, Khurda for fresh disposal. 53. It is further directed that the learned Collector, Khurda would follow the appropriate procedure after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the L.Rs. of the petitioner and dispose of Resumption Case No.1 of 1998 within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order. It is made clear that the learned Collector, Khurda while taking decision would pass a speaking order in accordance with law keeping in view the points discussed hereinabove. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Petition disposed of.