The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C). No.1737 OF 2019 (An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India) … Petitioner ******* Suprava Routray, aged about 56 years, W/o- Sri Laxmidhar Routray, Proprietor of M/s. Hotel ARIES, 61 Budha Nagar, Bhubaneswar-14, At present Samei Gadia (Chakisiani), P.O./P.S.- Mancheswar, Dist.- Khordha -versus- its Special Secretary 1. State of Odisha, represented through to Govt., General Administration Department, At- Secretariat Building, Odisha, Bhubaneswar, Dist- Khordha 2. Principal to Govt., Secretary Revenue and Disaster Management Department, At- Secretariat Building, Odisha, Bhubaneswar, Dist.-Khordha 3. Director of Estates & Ex-officio Additional Secretary to Government, General Administration Department, At- Secretariat Building, Odisha, Bhubaneswar, Dist.- Khordha 4. Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar, At/P.O.- Bhubaneswar, Dist.-Khordha … Opp. Parties Advocate for the parties: For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Sourav Suman Bhuyan, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. Swayambhu Mishra, Additional Standing Counsel W.P.(C). No.1737 of 2019 Page 1 of 8
Decision
CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO Heard and Disposed of on : 20.08.2025 J U D G M E N T By the Bench:- 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Petitioner in this writ application seeks to assail the Office Order dated 4th July, 2015 (Annexure-9) passed by the General Administration Department determining the lease in respect of Plot No.A/7, Drg. No. B/1380 to an extent of Ac.0.690 decimals of land from Revenue Plot No. 324(Part) and 326 (Part), Khata No. 609 of Mouza- Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar, District- Khordha (for brevity ‘the case land’) invoking Clause 4(1) of the lease deed for non-utilisation of the land. 3. Mr. Bhuyan, learned counsel submits that initially the Petitioner was allotted a government land in Mouza-Laxmisagar No.1 in Drawing Plot No. A/3 measuring an area of Ac. 0.543 dec. corresponding to Revenue Plot No. 2292(Part) under Khata No. 1988 in Mouza- Laxmisagar for the purpose of construction of Hotel Aries. The Petitioner was directed to deposit the premium of Rs.27,15,000/- (rupees twenty-seven lakhs fifteen thousand only). Accordingly, the Petitioner deposited the premium with the General Administration Department and submitted a lease deed in duplicate for execution and handing over physical possession of the allotted land to her. Although the lease deed in respect of the said land was executed on 26th December, 2000, but physical possession of the W.P.(C). No.1737 of 2019 Page 2 of 8 land could not be delivered to the Petitioner. Thereafter, the Allotment Committee of the General Administration Department, Government of Odisha, after careful consideration recommended the State Government to allot Ac.0.690 decimal of land at Mouza- Chandrasekharpur in favour of the Petitioner at the prevailing market rate. Hence, Director of Estate, vide Office Order dated 18th December, 2008 allotted the case land in exchange of the earlier allotment of land at Mouza- Laxmisagar. The premium in respect of the land allotted at Mouza-Chandrasekharpur was Rs.24,15,000/- (rupees twenty-four lakh fifteen thousand only). Since the Petitioner has already deposited a higher amount, the same was adjusted towards premium and the Petitioner was directed to surrender her deed in respect of the previous lease-hold property at Mouza- Laxmisagar and execute a fresh lease deed in respect of the case land. 3.1 Accordingly, allotment letter was also issued in favour of the Petitioner on 18th December, 2008 (Annexure-3). After allotment of the case land in favour of the Petitioner, the General Administration Department in its letter dated 5th May, 2009 (Annexure-4), intimated the Petitioner that the demarcation of the case land would be made after submission of the registered surrender deed in respect of the previously allotted land at Mouza- Laxmisagar. Accordingly, the Petitioner deposited the lease deed in respect of the land at Laxmisagar and accordingly executed a registered deed of surrender on 14th May, 2009 (Annexure-5). After such compliance, a registered lease deed was executed in respect of the case land in favour of the Petitioner under Annexure-6. W.P.(C). No.1737 of 2019 Page 3 of 8 4. It is submitted by Mr. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the Petitioner that the case land was never demarcated and identified to the Petitioner. Such demarcation and identification was necessary as it was a small portion of Plot Nos.324 and 326. Some other housing projects were also allotted land from the said bigger plots. 5. The Petitioner though applied for mutation of the land and preparation of the Record of Right in respect of the case land in her name, but it could not be done as the land was not identifiable. As the Record of Right for the case land could not be prepared in the name of the Petitioner, she could not take any financial assistance from any Bank/financial institution to start the project of the hotel Aries. When the matter stood thus, a neighboring lessee, namely, proprietor of Swarnabhumi Hotel encroached a portion of the case land, for which the Petitioner initiated a proceeding under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. In the said proceeding, it was for the first time disclosed that the lease in favour of the Petitioner in respect of the case land has already been determined. Thus, getting a copy of the impugned order (Annexure-9) under the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005, the Writ Petition has been filed seeking for the aforesaid relief. 6. It is further submitted by Mr. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the Petitioner that the show cause notice No.23080 dated 17th August, 2013 (Annexure-8) allegedly issued for determination of the lease of the case land was never served on the Petitioner. Thus, the Petitioner had no occasion to participate in the proceeding, if any, initiated for determination of the lease. As such, the Petitioner was not provided reasonable opportunity to put forth her case W.P.(C). No.1737 of 2019 Page 4 of 8 before the General Administration Department in the proceeding for determination of the lease. 7. Mr. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the Petitioner, therefore, prays for setting aside the impugned order under Annexure-9 and to remit the matter to the General Administration and Public Grievance Department for fresh consideration of the case of the Petitioner pursuant to the show cause notice dated 17th August, 2013 (Annexure-8) after giving her an opportunity to file a reply and to participate in the proceeding. 8. The matter was heard on several occasions. Vide order dated 21st July, 2025, this Court directed the learned State Counsel to produce the entire case record of the proceeding initiated for determination of the lease of the case land in favour of the Petitioner, which resulted in order under Annexure-9 (Annexure- A-1 to the counter affidavit). 9. Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel produces the concerned case record before this Court for perusal. On perusal of the case record, it appears that the draft show cause notice as at Annexure-8 was prepared and kept in the file. Although in the note sheet there is an endorsement to the effect that a direction was made to issue such show cause notice, but there is no material on record to show that either such notice was ever issued or served on the Petitioner. 9.1 Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel, however, submits that the physical possession of the case land was delivered to the Petitioner with definite boundaries. The Petitioner W.P.(C). No.1737 of 2019 Page 5 of 8 acknowledging identification of the case land as well as delivery of the possession, had signed on the said letter. Along with such possession letter at Annexure-D/1, the sketch map was also enclosed and the Petitioner had given the following endorsement (on the back of Annexure-D/1):- “Received a copy of the possession certificate with sketch map after field demarcation.” Sd/- Suprava Routray Proprietor M/s. Hotel Aries Lessee” Annexure E/1 to the counter affidavit is the sketch map enclosed to Annexure-D/1 which has also been signed by the Petitioner. Thus, he submits that the case land was properly identified and the physical possession of the case land was delivered to the Petitioner as back as on 9th June, 2009. Thereafter, the Petitioner did not raise any objection with the GA Department with regard to demarcation or identification of the case land. Fact remains that the land is still lying vacant and no construction has been undertaken by the Petitioner. Adherence of the principles of natural justice is not an empty formality. The Petitioner has not made out any case in the writ petition to assail the order under Annexure-9. The Petitioner has only alleged that principles of natural justice was not followed. Even if the Petitioner is provided with an opportunity of filing a reply to the show cause notice under Annesure-8, her case will not improve. In absence of any material available on record contrary to the observations made in the impugned order, the impugned order warrants no interference. W.P.(C). No.1737 of 2019 Page 6 of 8 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the case record as well as the original case record produced by Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel. 11. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record placed before us, it is apparent that a draft show cause notice at Annexure-8 was prepared. Although issue number and date was given in the said draft show cause notice, but there is no concrete material in the original case record produced by Mr. Mishra, learned ASC to ascertain that the said show cause notice was ever issued to the Petitioner or served on her. The original lease case record reveals that direction was made to issue such show cause notice to the Petitioner for determination of the lease. But in absence of any material to come to a conclusion that the notice was served on the Petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Petitioner should be given an opportunity to file her reply to the show cause notice No. 23080 dated 17th August, 2013 (Annexure-8). 12. Accordingly, this Court, without delving further into the merits of the case of either of the parties, which may otherwise prejudice their case, sets aside the order under Annexure-9 by which the lease granted in favour of the Petitioner in respect of the case land was determined and remits the matter to the General Administration and Public Grievance Department, Government of Odisha, to provide an opportunity to the Petitioner to file her reply to the show cause notice under Annexure-8 and to give her an opportunity of hearing in the proceeding for determination of the lease of the case land. W.P.(C). No.1737 of 2019 Page 7 of 8 12.1 It is further directed that the Petitioner shall file her show cause reply along with the certified copy of this order on or before 10th September, 2025 before the Director of Estates and ex-officio, Additional Secretary to Government, General Administration and Public Grievance Department, Government of Odisha- Opposite Party No.3. Upon receipt of such reply, if any, the Opposite Party No.3 shall issue notice intimating the Petitioner the date of hearing. Providing a reasonable opportunity to the Petitioner, a reasoned order shall be passed at an early date and be communicated to the Petitioner. Needless to say that the Petitioner shall co-operate with the authority for early disposal of the proceeding. 13. The Writ Petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. The original case record produced by Mr. Mishra, learned A.S.C. is returned to him for onward transmission to the Department. 14. In the facts and circumstances there shall be no order as to costs. (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge (Savitri Ratho) Judge High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Dated the 20th August, 2025//Subhalaxmi Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHALAXMI PRIYADARSHANI SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 26-Aug-2025 11:10:44 W.P.(C). No.1737 of 2019 Page 8 of 8