Allowed

Abhishek Kar v. the Secretary,Odisha State Housing Board,Bbsr

Orissa HC12 Nov 2021WP(C)/5959/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the State Housing Board's refusal to grant permission to transfer leased property, which was withheld upon a police letter citing a pending criminal trial against his parents. The court held the letter exceeded police powers as the property was not seized. The Board was directed to accord permission if requisitions are met within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

The Board is directed to forthwith accord permission for the transfer of the property if the application is otherwise in order.

Abhishek Kar Vs the Secretary,Odisha State Housing… — Property and Title | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 5959 of 2019

¶3

(Through Hybrid Mode)

¶4

….. Petitioner Abhishek Kar

¶5

Mr. B.Tripathy, Advocate Vs. The Secretary, Odisha State ….. Opposite Parties Housing Board, BBSR & another Mr. D.Ch. Dhal (For O.P.1) Mr. Y.S. P. Babu,AGA (For O.P.2)

¶6

CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
ORDER
12.11.2021

¶7

Order No. 10. 1. Mr. Tripathy, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner, who seeks permission to sell his property. He submits, his client got the plot of leased land by way of gift from his grandfather. He made construction thereon. Now being in need of money, he wants to transfer the property.

¶8

Petitioner applied for permission. He complied with all requisitions of the Board and permission was about to be granted, when, upon letter dated 1^st October, 2018 written by Superintendent of Police, C.I.D., C.B., Cuttack addressed to the Board, the permission was withheld. He refers to annexure-5 in the writ petition, letter dated 25^th February, 2019, wherein the Board gave reason for stopping issuance

¶9

Page 1 of 4

¶10

// 2 //

¶11

of permission, as in pursuance to said letter. He then refers to said letter dated 1st October, 2018, disclosed by the Board in its counter. He submits, the Officer did not have the power to cause seizure of the property. He relies on section 102 in Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶12

Mr. Babu, learned advocate appears for the State and submits, there is a criminal case pending against parents of petitioner. It is in this connection that the letter was written. 4. Mr. Dhal, learned advocate appears on behalf of the Board and submits, by order dated 31^st October, 2018, particulars of the criminal case pending against parents of petitioner were informed to him. 5. Nothing has been disclosed by opposite parties in their respective counters regarding acquisition of leasehold right by petitioner from his grandfather. Criminal proceeding pursuant to C.I.D. P.S. Case no.13 of 2007 U/s. 418/420/468/471/273/472/34 IPC is pending where parents of petitioner are accused persons. Said accused have been charge sheeted. This will appear from text of said letter dated 1^st October, 2018 (annexure-A/1) written by the Superintendent of Police, because of which permission has been withheld by the Board. The text is reproduced below:

¶13

“In inviting a reference to the subject under reference, I am to intimate that Sri Abhishek Kar, the present owner of House No.MIG-14 at Baramunda Housing Board Colony, Bhubaneswar, happens to be the S/o-Ganga Narayan Kar and Sunanda Kar both of whom are the accused persons in CID P.S. Case No.13/2007 U/s. 418/ 420/ 468/ 471/ 273/ 472/34 IPC . After due

¶14

Page 2 of 4

¶15

// 3 //

¶16

investigation, the above mentioned case has since been Charge Sheeted, which is SubJudice in the Court of Law at present. During investigation, it is proved beyond any reasonable doubt that there was transaction of money between Abhishek Kar and his parents.

¶17

Hence, it would not be proper to allow transfer of ownership of house in question to any other person by you since the matter is sub-Judice in the Court of law at present.”

¶18

Withholding of permission by the Board acting pursuant to said letter of the police cannot be said to be that thereby the property stood seized by the police. However, petitioner cannot be faulted to feel that the property has been seized, because he cannot deal with the property upon interference by the police. On the other hand nothing has been shown that the grandfather or the grandson (petitioner) are in any way involved in the alleged misdemeanor(s) of the accused persons. In event there is conviction in the criminal proceeding and subsequent steps for recovery by attachment of property, petitioner’s this property cannot be attached. This act of the Superintendent of Police in writing the letter appears to have been in excess of his power. The Board is directed to forthwith accord permission for the transfer, in event the application for permission is otherwise in order. If there is any outstanding requisition to be complied with by petitioner, he shall do so.

¶19

There must be action taken within three weeks from communication of this order. If permission is to be still

¶20

Page 3 of 4

¶21

// 4 //

¶22

withheld, clear reasons therefor must be informed to petitioner, within that time.

¶23

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶24

(Arindam Sinha) Judge

¶25

Prasant

¶26

Page 4 of 4

Abhishek Kar v. the Secretary,Odisha State Housing Board,Bbsr

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhishek Kar v. the Secretary,Odisha State Housing Board,Bbsr

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

Navin Ku.Pathak Vs Collector,Puri

Sanjukta Behera Vs Union of India

Lalit Narayan Das Vs Union of India

M/S Subhashree Engineering Vs State of Odisha

Hemanta Kumar Panda Vs Chairman Odisha State Bar Council, Cuttack

Kalinga Warriors (Partnership Firm) Vs State of Odisha