The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.4263 of 2023 The managing Committee of Rotaray Public School …. Petitioner Mr. G. Mishra, Senior Advocate & Mr. A.K. Nath, Advocate -Versus- Collector, Angul and Another Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Rout, AGA ….
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
Decision
ORDER 10.05.2023 Order No. 07. 1. Heard Mr. G. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner assisted by Mr. Nath, Advocate and Mr. Rout, learned AGA for the State-opposite parties. 2. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order dated 31st January, 2023 under Annexure-1 in connection with a proceeding initiated under Section 5(1) of the Odisha Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972 passed by the Tahasildar, Angul-opposite party No.2 on the grounds stated therein. 3. Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a school established in 1974 which is currently providing education to 1600 children in between class-1 to 12. It is further submitted that in the year 1983, State sanctioned lease for an Ac.0.75 decimal of the Govt. land situate over Plot No.1492, Khata No.1 in the concerned Mouza in favour Page 1 of 4 of the petitioner for construction of the school building and in that connection, on 17th February, 1984, a lease deed was executed and while claiming so, a copy of the deed as at Annexure-2 is referred to. It is further submitted that ever since the construction of the school building, adjacent land admeasuring approximately Ac.1.25 decimals situate over Plot Nos1013, 1489, 1551, 1552, and 1492 of the Govt. Khata to the lease hold has been in use as a playground and access road by them. According to Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate claimed that for the settlement of the said land, an application was moved before the concerned Tahasildar for grant of lease registered as Lease Case No.3 of 2002 which is still pending and no decision has been taken thereon. While referring to Annexure-8, Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate further submits that the Additional District Magistrate (Revenue), Angul has made a correspondence dated 16th December, 2021 directing the Tahasildar, Angul-opposite party No.2 to consider sanction of lease of the Govt. land measuring Ac.1.25 decimal in favour of the petitioner subject to payment of market value of the land as premium with annual rent and as admissible and agreed terms and conditions to be imposed at the time of sanction of such lease. However, it is claimed that despite such a letter to opposite party No.2, no action has yet to be taken with regard to sanction lease in respect of the schedule land. In order to show the bonafide to take the land on lease, a demand draft of Rs.2 Crore was produced before the Court on the last occasion and Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate also pleads that for the rest/differential amount assessed, the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the same before opposite party No.2 at the time of sanction of the lease. 4. Mr. Rout, learned AGA for the State-opposite parties on the other hand by referring to the counter affidavit submits that some Page 2 of 4 deficiencies have been pointed out by the RDC in his letter dated 6th April, 2004, a copy of which is at Annexure-A/2 and therefore, the land could not be settled and proceeding in Lease Case No.3 of 2002 is hence still pending. 5. On a reading of Annexure-A/2, the Court finds that the RDC intimated the Collector, Angul opposite party No.1 about certain deficiencies as mentioned in the check list and advised for its compliance and grant of lease subject to willingness on the part of petitioner to pay and deposit the market value. Considering the above, Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate submits that since the petitioner is already ready and prepared to deposit of market value for the land in question and has shown the bonafide by placing the demand draft on record, necessary direction may perhaps be issued to opposite party No.2 to consider the lease at the earliest. The Court is also the view that since the proceeding in Lease Case No.3 of 2002 is pending and there has been a process initiated but certain deficiencies are pointed out by the RDC as revealed from Annexure- A/2, it should be examined and if there is any such shortfall, it should be removed with its due intimation to the petitioner in order to pave the way for the grant of lease since there is already an interest shown from its side to deposit the market value. Having said that, the Court is conclusion that without further delay, opposite party No.2 should take earnest effort to consider the grant of lease in favour of the petitioner subject to fulfillment of all the criteria and conditions with the removal of the deficiencies as noted down in Annexure-A/2 to the counter affidavit. The Court is also of the conclusion that opposite party No.2 should work out and estimate the market value of the schedule land pending final orders. 6. Accordingly, it is directed. Page 3 of 4 7. In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to opposite party No.2 to speed up the hearing and disposal of proceeding in Lease Case No.3 of 2002 and to ensure removal of the deficiencies whatever as per the check list pointed out by the RDC in Annexure-A/2 and fulfillment of all the criteria necessary for grant of lease and simultaneously to estimate the market value and thereafter to proceed and dispose it of as per and in accordance with law preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It further directed that the estimation of the market value should be intimated within a month to the petitioner so that the amount involved may be deposited in case the lease vis-à-vis the schedule land is finally allowed in his favour. In view of the above, the Court also directs that the proceeding in OPP Case No.3 of 2022 shall remain stayed till the decision reached at with respect to Lease Case No.3 of 2002 within the stipulated period. The demand draft which is lying with the Court be returned to Mr. A.K. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner forthwith. 8. A certified copy of this order be granted as per rules. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Tudu THAKURDAS TUDU Digitally signed by THAKURDAS TUDU Date: 2023.05.11 19:37:50 +05'30' Page 4 of 4