Writ petition challenging rejection of candidature for an RGGLV LPG distributorship after a Tahasildar's letter indicated her purchased plot was alienated without Shree Jagannath Temple Administration's permission. The Court found disputed questions of fact over title and declined to adjudicate.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 14-Mar-2024 17:11:12
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 22998 OF 2014
(An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India) *****
Manasmita Palai
…… Petitioner
-Versus-
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Khurda and others
.…… Opp. Parties
Advocates appeared:
For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kumar Mohanty, Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Mr. Srinivas Patnaik, Advocate
(For Opposite Party No.1)
CORAM :
MR. JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
------------------------------------------------
Heard and disposed of on 13.03.2024
----------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
K.R. Mohapatra, J.
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. The Petitioner in this writ petition seeks to assail the letter dated 4th September, 2014 (Annexure-7) issued by the Territorial Manager (LPG), Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL), Bhubaneswar, whereby the candidature of the Petitioner for being appointed as Distributor for RGGLV LPG for the location Baulabandha, Sananairi in the district of Khurda under Open Category, has been rejected.
W.P.(C) No. 22998 OF 2014 Page 1 of 6
// 2 //
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 14-Mar-2024 17:11:12
3. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that due to an erroneous communication by the Tahasildar, Chilika vide his Letter No.1486 dated 11th July, 2014 (Annexure-5), the candidature of the Petitioner has been rejected. Elaborating his submission, it is submitted that pursuant to an advertisement in daily local newspaper “The Sambad” on 1st March, 2011 and corrigendum dated 23rd March, 2011 & 15th April, 2011 issued by the BPCL, the Petitioner applied for being appointed as Distributor of RGGLV LPG for location Baulabandha, Sananairi in the district of Khurda under Open Category. His application was considered favourably. Rejecting the candidature of rest of the applicants, the Petitioner came out successful in the selection process. Before issuance of Letter of Intent, the Tahasildar Chilika was consulted, who vide letter under Annexure-5 intimated that alienation of Plot No.1398 under Khata No.959 of Mouza Baulabandha was objectionable in nature as it was transferred to the Petitioner without approval of Shree Jagannath Temple Administration, Puri. The Registered Sale Deed dated 2nd April, 2011 basing upon which the Petitioner claims ownership of the land was a void one as no permission of the competent authority was taken before alienation. On the basis of said letter, letter under Annexure-7, has been issued.
4. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that the land stood recorded in the name of grandfather-in-law of the Petitioner. After his death, all his legal heirs vide Registered Sale Deed dated 2nd April, 2011 transferred
W.P.(C) No. 22998 OF 2014 Page 2 of 6
// 3 //
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 14-Mar-2024 17:11:12
the same in the name of the Petitioner. He also refers to the R.O.R. (Annexure-2) of the said Khata and submits that the land stood recorded in the name of Padma Ch. Biswal, Gourang Biswal, Kelu Biswal and Narayan Biswal under ‘ Stitiban’ Status. The Petitioner purchased the land from the legal heir of recorded tenants. There is no indication in the R.O.R. to suggest that the land belongs to Shree Jagannath Temple Administration. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel also refers to the list of property of Shree Jagannath Temple Administration, Puri at Baulabandha (Annexure-6), which does not include Khata No.959 (the disputed land).. As such, the rejection of candidature of the Petitioner for RGGLV LPG distributorship is illegal. Hence, the letter under Annexure-7 is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside. The Petitioner should be settled with the distributorship of the RGGLV LPG of BPCL in respect of the aforesaid location.
5. Mr. Patnaik, learned counsel appearing for the BPCLOpposite Party No.1 vehemently objects to the same. Referring to the counter affidavit filed by Opposite Party No.1, he submits that the Petitioner, being the only selected candidate, was directed to submit records in respect of the ownership of the land over which the godown and office for storage and distribution of LPG cylinders was to be constructed. He also refers to Clause No.7.1.viii of Manual for selection of RGGLV, October, 2012, which reads as under:
“Should own a plot of land of adequate size at the advertised RGGLV location for construction of godown for storage of
W.P.(C) No. 22998 OF 2014 Page 3 of 6
// 4 //
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 14-Mar-2024 17:11:12
5000 kg of LPG in cylinders of ready LPG cylinder storage go down of 5000 kg capacity.”
“Own means having clear ownership title of the property in the name of applicant/family member(s) of the “Family Unit” as defined in multiple dealership/distributorship norm.”
But, In view of the communication of the Tahasildar, Chilika, under Annexure-5, the ownership of land being in dispute, the candidature of the Petitioner was rejected. He further submits that the Petitioner although submitted documents in support of his case, but the letter of the Tahasildar, Chilika, who is the custodian of R.O.Rs. of said area, indicates that the land in question was alienated in favour of the Petitioner without prior permission of Shree Jagannath Temple Administration, Puri. There being a dispute with regard to ownership of the land, the letter under Annexure-7 cannot be faulted with. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
6. Taking into consideration the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that the Petitioner was the only candidate selected for being appointed as the Distributor of RGGLV LPG for BPCL for the location Baulabandha, Sananairi in the district of Khurda. The area comes under the Chilika tahasil. The Petitioner claims ownership over the land on the basis of sale deed dated 2nd April, 2011. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner also referred to the R.O.R. under Annexure-2 in respect of the land in question, which stands recorded in the names of Padma Charan Biswal, Gourang Biswal, Kelu Biswal and Narayan Biswal under ‘ Stitiban’ status. The ROR was published on 1st April, 1974. But the transaction in question was made on 2nd April, W.P.(C) No. 22998 OF 2014 Page 4 of 6
// 5 //
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 14-Mar-2024 17:11:12
7. Fact remains that the letter under Annexure-5 has not been challenged in this writ petition. In view of the above, the Tahasildar, Chilika has not responded to the contention of writ petition. Had the letter under Annexure-5 been challenged, the Tahasildar, Chilika would have thrown light on the correctness of such letter. In one hand, the Petitioner claims that she has absolute right, title, interest and possession over the land in question on the basis of the registered sale deed dated 2nd April, 2011. On the other hand, Annexure-5 discloses that alienation of the property in favour of the Petitioner is objectionable. In view of the disputed questions of fact, this Court is not in a position to ascertain the correctness of the statement made by Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner to the effect that the Petitioner has absolute right, title, interest and possession over the suit property.
8. The Territorial Manager, BPCL basing on the contents of letter under Annexure-5, rejected the candidature of the Petitioner for being appointed as Distributor of RGGLV LPG of
W.P.(C) No. 22998 OF 2014 Page 5 of 6
// 6 //
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 14-Mar-2024 17:11:12
BPCL for the location Baulabandha in the district of Khurda. No contrary material was placed before the Territorial Manager, BPCL indicating that the contents of the letter under Annexure-5 are not correct. As discussed earlier, the letter under Annexure-5 stares at the Petitioner questioning her right, title, interest and possession over the suit property. That having not been challenged, this Court is not in a position to record any finding with regard to right, title, interest and possession of the Petitioner over the land in question, which is only reason for rejection of candidature of the Petitioner.
9. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of any merit stands dismissed.
Urgent certified copy of this judgment be granted on
proper application.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated 13th March, 2024/Madhusmita
W.P.(C) No. 22998 OF 2014 Page 6 of 6
1 issue framed by the court
Whether rejection of the petitioner's candidature as RGGLV LPG distributor, based on the Tahasildar's letter questioning her land title, was sustainable.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Manasmita Palai
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Khurda
Opposite Party No.2
Opposite Party No.3
K.R. Mohapatra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
