Dismissed

Hrudananda Das v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC13 May 2024WP(C)/10884/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bench of Justice D. Dash and V. Narasingh dismissed the writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The Court held an order passed in 1996 expired over 25 years ago without fresh inquiry regarding market value. The applicant had no independent right as he was merely an intending purchaser in a non est order.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to cost.

Hrudananda Das Vs State of Odisha — Property and Title | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.10884 of 2024

Hrudananda Das

.....

Petitioner

Represented By Adv.

Bibekananda

¶7

Bhuyan

¶8

-versus-

¶9

1) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties 2) Commissioner Of Represented By Adv. Endowments, Odisha – G.N. Rout, ASC 3) Shree Shree Haribaladev Mr. A. K. Nath, Mahaprabhu Bije, Baripada Advocate for 4) Sub-collector, Baripada-cumEndowment

¶10

Shree Shree Haribaladev Mahaprabhu Bije, Baripada 4) Sub-collector, Baripada-cumexecutive Officer, Baripada Debottar

¶11

1. Executive Engineer, P.W.Dept., Mayurbhanj

¶12

1. Supdt. Of Police, Baripada

¶13

CORAM:

¶14

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.DASH

¶15

AND

¶16

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. NARASINGH

ORDER

13.05.2024

Order No.

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement (virtual/physical) mode.

¶21

The Petitioner, by filing this writ petition has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for a direction to the Opposite Party No.4 (Sub-Collector, Baripada-cum-Executive Officer,

¶22

Page 1 of 3.

¶23

Baripada Debottar) to effect the transfer of the property described in the Schedule in his favour on receipt of the market value.

¶24

Heard Mr. S. S. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. G. N. Rout, learned Additional Standing Counsel.

¶25

Keeping in view the submissions made, the averments taken in the writ petition as also the documents annexed thereto being gone through, it reveals that the prayer advanced by this Petitioner as above essentially springs from an order dated 13.09.1996 passed by the learned Commissioner of Endowment in O.A. No.94 of 1994 (II) on an application filed by the Opposite Party No.4 under section 19 of the Odisha Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 (for short, ‘OHRE Act’).

¶26

It reveals from the said order under Annexxure-3 that the Commissioner had permitted the Opposite Party No.4 to sale the property to the Petitioner, who was then the intending purchaser giving preference at the rate of Rs.30 lac per acre. Bare perusal of the order reveals that the reason for seeking permission for sale of the said land was that it was remaining unutilized and the Petitioner had prayed to take the said land as per the market rate for construction of dwelling house. First of all, the move of the Opposite Party No.4 on its own showing, according to us does not fall within the ambit of section 19 of the OHRE Act for making an application in that regard and it clearly appears to be at the behest of this Petitioner. So, the order in that regard as has been passed is nonest in the eye of law.

¶27

Page 2 of 3.

¶28

Furthermore, the said order having been passed way back in the year 1996, that has already spent its force since long and now without fresh enquiry, it cannot even be said that sale of the Scheduled property is at all necessary or beneficial to the Institution and moreso, as in the meantime more than 25 years have passed, the market price so fixed must have undergone manifold rise, which is again required to be enquired into and ascertained. Therefore in our considered view the order of the Commissioner in the eye of law has undergone a decent burial.

¶29

That apart, it appears to us that when the Petitioner before the Commissioner of Endowment within a reasonable time has not taken any step to carry forward the order of permission into action, the present Petitioner having acquired no right at all and being simply projected as the intending purchaser in the said order, the present petition with the prayer as advanced seeking exercise of this Court’s extra ordinary writ jurisdiction at his instance is also not entertainable.

¶30

Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to cost.

¶31

(D.Dash) Judge

¶32

(V. Narasingh) Judge

¶33

Signature Not Verified

¶34

Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 17-May-2024 19:15:37 Gitanjali

¶35

Page 3 of 3.

Hrudananda Das v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hrudananda Das 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Sri Baladev Jew , Sidhal, Jagatsinghpur Vs State of Odisha

Somanath Das Vs Tata Capital Housing Finance Ltd, Mumbai

Satyajit Chatarjee Vs State of Odisha

Kailash Chandra Rath Vs State of Odisha

Somanath Mohanty Vs Idbi Bank Ltd. Bbsr

Dayanidhi Meher Vs State of Odisha