The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C ) No.22904 of 2024 Prasanna Kumar Bhoi ..... Petitioner Mr. U.K. Samal, Adv. -versus- The Addl. District Magistrate, Sundargarh and Another ..... Opp. Parties Mr. B. Mohanty, AGA THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY CORAM: ORDER 23.09.2024 Order No.2 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. Pursuant to the Order dated 17.09.2024, Learned Additional Standing Counsel produced the instruction provided by the Sub-Collector, Sundargarh vide letter dated 18.09.2024. Copy of the instruction so provided along with the relevant documents be kept on record. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner also files an affidavit enclosing the copy of the minutes dated 29.01.2024 with service of copy on the Learned Additional Standing Counsel in Court. Copy of the affidavit be also kept on record. 5. Petitioner has filed present writ petition inter alia challenging the order passed by the Sub-Collector, Sundargarh on 09.07.2024 under Annexure-6, further . confirmed by the A.D.M, Sundargarh vide order dated 23.08.2024 under Annexure-8. 6. It is the case of the Petitioner that the land in question stands recorded in the name of the Petitioner under Khata No.383/554 in Mouza-Toparia under
Legal Reasoning
Annexure-5. It is contended that Petitioner’s son being issued with the Letter of Intent to open a rural retail outlet dealership by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited under Annexure-1, petitioner for the purpose of execution of the lease agreement with Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited by his son, made an application to issue the required NOC before Tahsildar Hemgir, in terms of the letter issued by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited under Annexure-2. 6.1. It is contended that on receipt of such application vide letter dated 06.05.2024 under Annexure-3 Tahsildar, Hemgir sought for the views of Opp. Party No.1 and in that regard concerned R.I also submitted report on 23.04.2024. However, vide order dated 09.07.2024, Opp.Party No. 2 refused to grant the NOC in the application registered as Misc. case No. 04 of 2024 under Annexure-6. Opp.Party No. 2 relying on the provisions contained under Regulation-2(f) of Regulation 2 of 1956, refused to grant the NOC in the favour of the Petitioner. 6.2. It is contended that being aggrieved by such refusal vide Order under Annexure-6, Petitioner moved Learned A.D.M, Sundargarh by filing Revenue Appeal . No. 04 of 2024. But Opp.Party No. 1 vide Order dated 23.08.2024 under Annexure-8 while rejecting the appeal confirmed the Order passed by the Tahsildar on 09.07.2024 under Annexure-6 relying on the self-same provisions contained under Regulation-2(f) of Regulation 2 of 1956. 6.3. Placing reliance on the provision contained under Regulation-2(f) of Regulation 2 of 1956, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that the said provision is no way applicable to the case in hand as the Petitioner is not transferring the land in any manner in favour of any third party. 6.4. It is contended that the land under Annexure-5 stands recorded in the name of the Petitioner and his son has been selected to open the retail outlet in terms of the Letter of Intent issues under Annexure-1. In order to allow by allowing his son to operate the retail outlet, NOC was sought for by the Petitioner and accordingly an application was made to grant such NOC. But relying the provisions contained under Regulation 2(f) of the Regulation 2 of 1956, Opp.Party No.2 initially rejected the application in Misc. case No. 04 of 2024 vide Order under Annexure-6 which was confirmed by the Appellate Authority-Opp.Party No.1 vide Order dt.30.08.2024 under Annexure-8. 6.4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that since the Petitioner is no way transferring the land in any manner in favour of any third party, the provisions . contained under Regulation 2(f) of the Regulation 2 of 1956 is not applicable to the facts of the case. Regulation -2(f) of Regulation 2 of 1956 Act reads as follows; of Transfer immovable “2(f) property” means mortgage with or without possession, lease, sale, gift, exchange or any other dealings with such a and testamentary includes a charge or contract relating to such property.” disposition property being not 6.5. Making all the submissions learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that impugned Order rejecting the application for grant of NOC vide Order under Annexure-6, so confirmed vide Order under Annexure-8 are not sustainable in the eye of Law. 7. Learned Additional Standing Counsel though on the other hand supported the impugned order and contended that Petitioner having belong to Scheduled Tribe category, in view of the restriction imposed under Regulation 2(f) of the Regulation, Opp.Party No.2 refused to grant the NOC vide Order under Annexure-6 and in the appeal the same has been confirmed vide under Annexure-8. It is accordingly contended that no illegality or irregularity has been committed by Op. Nos. 1 and 2 in refusing to grant the NOC, as made by the Petitioner. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made and after going . through the provisions contained under Regulation -2(f) of the Regulation, this Court is of the view that the Petitioner is the recorded tenant of the land recorded under Annexure-5. Petitioner’s son having been found eligible to open a retail outlet under Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited with issuance of Letter of Intent under Annexure-1, Petitioner made the application seeking grant of NOC as required by the Corporation under Annexure-2. 8.1. Since Petitioner is seeking the NOC in order to enable his son to open the retail outlet in terms of the Letter of Intent issued under Annexure-1 and further letter issued by the Corporation under Annexure-2, as per the considered view of this Court that it does not amount to transfer of the land or testamentary disposition or creating a change or contract relating to the property and thereby applying the provisions contained under Regulation-2(f) of Regulation 2 of 1956. 8.2. In view of such analysis this Court is inclined to quash Order dated 09.07.2024 so issued by Op. No. 2 under Annexure-6 and Order dated 23.8.2024 so issued by Op. No.1 under Annexure-8. While quashing both the Orders this Court directs Op. No.2 to grant the required NOC in favour of the Petitioner, as applied for, within a period of two(2) weeks from the date of receipt of this Order. Petitioner is permitted to provide a copy of this Order before the Opp. No. 2 for compliance. .
Decision
The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. ( Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Sangita .