Disposed

Chitta Ranjan Nayak v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC15 Dec 2020WP(C)/152/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking to quash a letter directing petitioners to make a fresh application for land conversion. The Court held that petitioners had not raised objections before the relevant authority and directed them to do so within three weeks before the Court could entertain the matter.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioners to file objections to the impugned letter before the appropriate authority within three weeks.

Chitta Ranjan Nayak Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2020) — LawSathi Research

¶1

W.P.(C) No.152 of 2020

¶2

15.12.2020

¶3

Due to outbreak of COVID-19, this matter is taken up through Video Conferencing.

¶4

Heard Mr. Biswajit Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-opposite parties.

¶5

The petitioners in this writ petition pray for a direction to quash the letter no.37431/CA, dated 27.12.2019 (Annexure-12) issued by the Additional Land Officer, General Administration and Public Grievances Department, Government of Odisha, Bhubaneswaropposite party no.2 wherein he has directed the petitioners to make a fresh application for conversion of the leasehold land to freehold by uploading their application online in terms of GA Department order No.8572/CA dated 23.02.2018.

¶6

Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that land in Plot No.278 at Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar, which correspondence to Major Settlement Plot No.970 under Khata No.639 in Mouza-Bhubaneswar Sahara Unit No.11 (Saheed Nagar) was leased out in favour of the father of the petitioners, namely, Bishnu Charan Nayak. During his lifetime, he made an application in the year, 2013 under Rule 5-C of the Odisha Government Land Settlement Rules, 1983 (for short ‘the Rules’) for conversion of the leasehold property to freehold. In spite of his best effort during the lifetime of their father, the said application was not considered. Thus, after his death, the petitioners pursued the matter.

¶7

¶8

Due to inaction of the authorities, the petitioners had approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.10635 of 2019, which was disposed of vide order dated 09.07.2019 with the following direction:-

¶9

“Regard being had to the facts and submission, the Opposite party no.2 is directed to dispose of the representation of the petitioners vide Annexure-10 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order by passing a reasoned order.

¶10

It is needless to mention here that, if there is no legal embargo, the prayer of the petitioners be allowed.

¶11

The petitioners are directed to supply the copy of the writ petition containing all the annexures to the Opposite party no.2 along with a certified copy of this order for convenience and reference to Annexure-10.”

¶12

Accordingly, the matter was taken up by the GA Department and the impugned letter under Annexure-12 has been issued.

¶13

It is submitted by Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioners that since the father of the petitioners had submitted the application for conversion of the land in the year, 2013, they are liable to pay the conversion charges and land value etc. of the relevant period and not at the current rate. In view of the impugned letter under Annexure-12, if the petitioners upload a fresh application for conversion of the land, they have to pay the conversion charges and land value as per the current rate, which they are not liable to pay. Due to inaction of the authorities, the petitioners should not be made liable to pay the conversion charges at a higher rate. In that view of the matter, he prays for a direction to set aside the said letter and direct the authorities to consider the

¶14

¶15

application submitted by their father by substituting their names in the said application.

¶16

Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, on the other hand, submits that since the father of the petitioners has already expired, the application submitted by him has become infructuous and cannot be considered. The petitioners have to make a fresh application as per the order of the GA Department mentioned in the letter under Annexure-12. As such, there is no illegality in issuing such letter.

¶17

Taking into consideration the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the petitioners have not yet raised objection to the letter under Annexure-12 before the authorities concerned. Thus, this Court is of the considered view that before approaching this Court, the petitioners should have raised their objection to the letter/communication under Annexure-12 before the appropriate authority for their consideration in accordance with law.

¶18

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction that in the event the petitioners file their objection to the letter no.37431/CA, dated 27.12.2019 under Annexure-12 before the appropriate authority within a period of three weeks hence, the same shall be considered and disposed of by passing a reasoned order as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing of such objection giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.

¶19

¶20

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case of either parties. Authenticated copy of this order downloaded from the website of this Court shall be treated at par with certified copy in the manner prescribed in this Court’s Notice No.4587 dated 25.03.2020.

¶21

……..……………………

¶22

K.R. MOHAPATRA,J.

¶23

Chitta Ranjan Nayak v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chitta Ranjan Nayak v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Purna Chandra Lenka Vs Pratap Kumar Lenka

Kedar Nayak Vs Tahasildar, Bbsr

Sk.Gulam Sadik Vs the Collector,Balasore

State of Orissa Vs Jyotsnamai Sahoo

State of Odisha Vs Sumati Sahu

T.Kanakamma Reddy Vs State of Odisha