Allowed

Bimal Kumar Agarwal v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC18 Dec 2024WP(C)/19347/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition directing the respondent authority to correct the Record of Rights (RoR). The Court held that since land conversion was permitted years ago and corresponding rent was collected, the authority must change the land classification from 'Jalasaya' to 'homestead' without requiring proof before a Committee.

What did the court decide?

Directed to correct the Record of Rights (RoR) by changing the kisam from 'Jalasaya' to 'homestead' and issue the corrected document within four weeks subject to verification.

Bimal Kumar Agarwal Vs State of Odisha — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.19347 of 2024

¶3

Bimal Kumar Agarwal & others …. Petitioners

¶4

Mr. A.K. Sarangi, Advocate

¶5

-Versus-

¶6

State of Odisha & another

…. Opposite parties

Mr. C.M. Singh, ASC

CORAM:

MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

ORDER

18.12.2024

Order No.

Heard Mr. Sarangi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Singh, learned ASC for the State.

¶16

Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioners for a direction to the opposite parties and in particular, opposite party No.2 to issue corrected RoR to them in respect of the schedule land morefully described therein changing kisam of the same from ‘Jalasaya’ to ‘homestead’ within a stipulated period.

¶17

Mr. Sarangi, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that RoR has been issued in favour of the petitioners and the schedule land is recorded as ‘Jalasaya’. It is further submitted that conversion was applied for in Conversion Case No.155 of 2003 and the same was allowed in the year 2003 vide Annexure-2. It is claimed that permission was also allowed by the Cuttack Development Authority (CDA) for construction of three storied building over the same, as revealed from Annexure-3. it is also claimed that rent which was paid

¶18

Page 1 of 3

¶19

by the petitioners was also received as per Annexure-4. According to Mr. Sarangi, learned counsel, the corrected RoR should have been issued in favour of the petitioners changing the kisam to ‘homestead’. It is further claimed that Municipality has collected tax from the petitioners for the land in question used as homestead. Hence, it is submitted that the corrected RoR is required to be issued.

¶20

Referring to the affidavit filed by opposite party No.2, Mr. Singh, learned ASC for the State submits that opposite party No.2 does not have jurisdiction to convert the kisam to ‘homestead’ from ‘Jalasaya’ in view of judgment in OJC No.6721 of 1999 ( Prasant Kumar Das Vrs. The State of Orissa & others ) and W.P.(C) No.8797 of 2004 ( Tapan Kumar Das Vrs. Commissioner, Cuttack Municipal Corporation & others ) decided and disposed of on 11^th October, 2012 with guidelines issued for consideration of any such request by the Committee duly constituted and headed by the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Cuttack. It is further submitted by Mr. Mohanty, learned ASC that on receiving request from the petitioners, they have been directed to produce the relevant documents seeking conversion of land from ‘Jalasaya’ to ‘homestead’ vide letter dated 221^st October, 2024 as at Annexure-B/2 to the affidavit, which has not been complied with.

¶21

Mr. Sarangi, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that conversion has already been allowed in the year 2003, therefore, there is no need of any such direction to the Committee in view of decision in Prasant Kumar Das (supra). It is the claim that the conversion rent is being accepted from the petitioners as per Annexure-4 and also the Municipality tax for the schedule land. As per the aforesaid decision, referred to by Mr. Singh, learned ASC for the State, any such conversion which is demanded was directed to be

¶22

Page 2 of 3

¶23

considered by a Committee. The claim of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the land was never used as ‘Jalasaya’ and though the conversion was allowed but with the kisam recorded as such.

¶24

Considering the above facts and the submission of learned counsel for the respective parties and, as, such conversion is of the year 2003 with the kisam ‘Jalasaya’ which is requested to be recorded as ‘homestead’, this Court is of the view that there no further need for the matter being placed before the Committee in view of decision in Prasant Kumar Das (supra). The only requirement is to change the kisam to ‘homestead’ considering the conversion taking place almost twenty years back with issuance of RoR. As the rent has been collected from the petitioners, opposite party No.2, therefore, should be directed to correct the RoR instead of demanding relevant documents to be placed before the Committee in view of decision in Prasant Kumar Das (supra) by only confirming the claim that it is or was never used as a ‘Jalasaya’.

¶25

7. Hence, it is ordered.

¶26

In the result, the writ petition stands allowed with the direction to opposite party No.2 to correct the RoR with kisam from ‘Jalasaya’ to ‘homestead’ and thereafter, to issue the corrected one to the petitioners, subject to verification as directed, concluding the exercise as soon as possible preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶27

9. Writ petition stands disposed of.

¶28

Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per rules.

¶29

Signature Not Verified

¶30

Digitally Signed Signed by: ALOK RANJAN SETHY Designation: Asst. Registrar-Cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 19-Dec-2024 12:06:32Alok

¶31

Page 3 of 3

Bimal Kumar Agarwal v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bimal Kumar Agarwal 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

Sisir Ku.Behera Vs State

Pushpa Devi Agrawal Vs the State of Odisha

Jairam Agarwalla Vs State

Rabindra Nayak@Rabindra Kumar Vs State of Odisha

Krushna Chandra Majhi Vs Commissioner -Cum-Secretary to Govt.,Panchayati Raj

Subash Swabi Vs State of Odisha