Disposed

M/S.Padma Hospitality Pvt.Ltd. v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC17 Jul 2023WP(C)/11463/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench disposed of a writ petition challenging an eviction notice and related proceedings. The Court directed the petitioners to approach the Appellate Authority for the eviction notice and simultaneously seek the final order on the pending lease proposal with the liberty to maintain status quo until the appeal is decided.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to approach Appellate Authority against eviction notice within fortnight, maintain status quo, and liberty to work out remedy regarding lease proposal.

M/S.Padma Hospitality Pvt.Ltd. Vs State of Odisha — Property and Title | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.11463 of 2015

¶3

M/s. Padma Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & …. Petitioners Another

¶4

-Versus-

¶5

State of Odisha & Others …. Opposite Parties

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

ORDER

Order No.

17.07.2023

Heard Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Mishra, learned ASC for the State-opposite parties.

¶13

Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioners challenging the proceeding in E.C. Case No.210/1 of 2011-12 initiated by opposite party No.3 with the issuance of impugned notice under Annexure-6 and also for a direction not to evict them from the schedule land and demolish any such construction raised over the same till finalization of Lease Case No. 32(U) of 2011.

¶14

Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Lease Case No. 32(U) of 2011 was stated to be pending at the Government level, which was forwarded by opposite party No.2 without granting the lease as he has jurisdiction to do so and furthermore, when the District Level Single Window Clearance Authority constituted under the Orissa Industries (Facilitation) Act, 2004 had recommended the same in its meeting dated 4^th November, 2011. It is submitted that petitioner No.1 is a Small and Medium Scale Industry registered with opposite party No.4, however, since 2011 it is in need of the schedule land in respect of which the lease was applied for. The minutes of the District Level

¶15

Page 1 of 3

¶16

Single Window Clearance Authority meeting dated 4^th November, 2011 and letter of opposite party No.4 dated 7^th December, 2011 as at Annexure-3 series have been referred to by Mr. Rath with the submission that the lease should be allowed in favour of the petitioners.

¶17

Ms. Mishra, learned ASC for the State-opposite parties referring to the counter affidavit, however, submits that though the lease proposal was sent to the Government for sanction, it has been returned back to opposite party No.2 by a letter dated 17^th June, 2015 with the observation that such grant of lease in favour of petitioner No.1, a hotel industry would be in violation of the Apex Court’s judgment in Jaspal Singh & Others Vrs. State of Punjab and others (Civil Appeal No.1132 of 2011) and also this Court’s judgment and order dated 11^th October, 2012 passed in W.P.(C) No.8797 of 2004 and OJC No. 6721 of 1999. With the above facts pleaded in the counter affidavit and referring to the fact that the impugned action under challenge is as against an OPLE proceeding, Ms. Mishra, learned ASC lastly submits that the petitioner should approach the appellate forum since in the meantime, notice in Form ‘Kha’ was issued. It is also submitted that the petitioners may obtain any such order passed in Lease Case No. 32(U) of 2011 for seeking appropriate relief under law as available to them.

¶18

Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioners in reply submits that there has been no such intimation received regarding rejection of the lease proposal. Nevertheless, the counter affidavit reveals that the proposal for lease of the schedule land has been returned back to opposite party No.2 in the meantime, which is in the year 2012. The present status, as according to Ms. Mishra, learned ASC for the State is unknown and it is submitted that the petitioners may approach opposite party No.2 for the same.

¶19

Having regard to the counter affidavit of opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 and the fact that the lease proposal and the file has

¶20

Page 2 of 3

¶21

been returned back to opposite party No.2, the Court is of the view that the petitioners should approach opposite party No.2 in order to ascertain the final order passed in Lease Case No. 32(U) of 2011 so as to enable them to avail and workout the remedy as per law. At the same time, the Court is of the further view that since in the meantime, notice in Form ‘Kha’ has been issued in E.C. Case No.210/1 of 2011-12, the petitioner should knock the doors of the Appellate Authority challenging eviction action and on the premise that the proposal for lease and final decision thereon still not to have been communicated.

¶22

7. Accordingly, it is ordered.

¶23

In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of with the liberty allowed in favour of the petitioners to approach the Appellate Authority as against the impugned notice under (Annexure-C/3) to the counter affidavit and in the event, any such appeal is filed within a fortnight from today, the same shall be entertained by the Sub-Collector, Cuttack by condoning the delay, if any and thereafter to proceed and to dispose it of as per and in accordance with law providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties involved preferably within a period of next four weeks and till such time, to maintain status quo vis-à-vis the schedule land. Furthermore, it is observed that the petitioners shall be at liberty to work out the remedy as available under law with regard to the lease proposal in connection with Lease Case No. 32(U) of 2011.

¶24

Urgent copy of this order be issued as per rules.

¶25

Signature Not VerifiedBalaram

¶26

Digitally Signed Signed by: BALARAM BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUT TACK Date: 19-Jul-2023 10:22:51

¶27

Page 3 of 3

M/S.Padma Hospitality Pvt.Ltd. v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Padma Hospitality Pvt.Ltd. 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jitendra Ku.Pradhan @ J.Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Sudhir Ch.Das Vs Commnr.-C-Secy.

Kamala Pradhan @ Kamala Bairiganjan Vs State of Odisha

Radha Govinda Jew Vs Brahmananda Prusty

Ramakanta Bhal Vs Sushanta Sutar, Tahasildar, Chandibali

Gangadhar Sethy Vs Amulya Kumar Sahoo, Tahsildar, Tirtol