Manoj Kumar Nayak Vs State of Orissa

Parties calling upon them to show-cause, as to why appropriate writ/writs shall not be issued quashing Annexure-7 to the writ application order as to why the Opposite Parties shall not be directed to allow conversion to the land leased out in favour of the Petitioner in terms of the Permission Order under Annexure-6 and permit the petitioner to deposit the money as directed under Annexure-6; And it the Opposite Parties tail to show cause or show insufficient cause, make the said Rule absolute;”

¶20

The essential grievance of the Petitioner is against the cancellation of order dated 29.09.2011, whereby the plot in question was converted into a freehold, the lease agreement being dated 22.07.1992.

¶21

2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner argues that before cancelling the freehold conversion, he has not been heard in the matter, and that the letter dated 12.12.2011, by virtue of which he was asked to remit a particular sum of money, had not been served on him and therefore, the impugned action is liable to be voided. Even otherwise, the impugned order lacks the compliance with fairness standard, which authorities like the OPs have to maintain. Thus, the action is violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India.

¶22

3. Learned AGA-Mr. Jee appearing for the OPs vehemently opposes the petition contending that Petitioner had applied for conversion to freehold vide application dated 25.07.2011 and the same, having been processed, was

¶23

Page 2 of 6

¶24

allowed vide order dated 29.09.2011 and thereafter a communication dated 12.12.2011 was sent to the Petitioner, which returned unserved on the ground that ‘addressee’ was not available; that being the position, it was the duty of the Petitioner to have an interaction with the concerned officials to know the fate of his application, and this having not been done, he cannot allege violation of principle of natural justice. He also brings to the notice of the Court the present market price of the subject property being too high. Lastly, he adds that now there is requirement of paying consent charges.

¶25

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant conditional indulgence in the matter as under and for the following reasons:

¶26

4.1. The plot in question was allotted to the Petitioner and pursuant to that lease came to be executed on 22.07.1992. Petitioner had applied for conversion of leasehold into a freehold vide application dated 25.07.2011, and that the said application came to be favoured by the jurisdictional OP vide order dated 29.09.2011. Thus, some concrete interest in the property was blown up to the full extant in favour of the Petitioner by virtue of this order which made him owner. Such blown up interest cannot be pierced like a

¶27

Page 3 of 6

¶28

balloon, interest being the property in terms of Article 300A of the Constitution of India, as expansively construed by Apex Court in K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka , AIR 2011 SC 3430.

¶29

4.2. True it is that a Communication dated 12.12.2011 was sent to the Petitioner asking him to remit a particular sum of money by way of conversion charges to bring about freehold. However, the said letter admittedly returned unserved on the Petitioner, may be because he was away from the station for a short while. Why no reminder was sent to the Petitioner calling upon him to make payment, is also not forthcoming. In matters like this, it is ideal to expect one or two reminders. What heavens would have fallen down if such reminders were shooted to the allottee remains a mystery wrapped in enigma.

¶30

4.3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, in all fairness, submits and he has filed a memo to the effect that his client shall be paying 12% compound interest per annum with yearly rest on the amount he was required to remit to the jurisdictional OP, pursuant to communication dated 12.12.2011 with retrospective effect. The memo reads as under:

¶31

Page 4 of 6

¶32

“The Petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the conversion charges with compound interest up-to-date @12% as would be directed by the Hon’ble Court.”

¶33

Whatever little prejudice the answering OPs may arguably suffer, can

¶34

be compensated by awarding interest on the amount payable by the petitioner.

¶35

Though the subject memo does not mention about the rest period for compounding interest, this Court adds the same to balance the competing equities.

¶36

4.4. The last submission of learned AGA that in addition to the conversion

¶37

charges, there is liability on the part of allottee of the site to pay consent charges, is bit difficult to countenance, inasmuch as such a requirement has been liquidated by the Division Bench of this Court in Sanjubala Mishra &

¶38

Others v. State of Odisha & Others , W.P.(C) No.1085 of 2021 decided on 19.04.2021.

¶39

In the above circumstances, this writ petition conditionally succeeds; the Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the order dated 24.11.2014, a copy whereof avails at Annexure-7. A Writ of Mandamus issues to the OPs to restore the freehold status of the plot, as was done pursuant to order dated 29.09.2011, subject to the condition that Petitioner shall pay compound interest @ 12% per annum with annual rest within a period of eight weeks, till

¶40

Page 5 of 6

¶41

actual payment is made. It is made clear that the interest mentioned above shall accrue due w.e.f. 12.12.2011. If interest is not paid, petitioner shall not be entitled to draw any benefit under this judgment.

¶42

Now, no costs.

¶43

Web copy of this judgment to be acted upon by all concerned.

¶44

Dixit Krishna Shripad, Judge

¶45

Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 21^st day of August, 2025/Madhusmita

¶46

Signature Not Verified

¶47

Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA MALLICK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CU TTACK Date: 22-Aug-2025 10:32:15