Disposed

Dusmanta Kumar Mohanty v. the Commissioner of Endowment,Odisha

Orissa HC7 Apr 2026WP(C)/34217/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging non-extension of a cashew orchard lease and seeking compensation for cyclone damage. Petitioner failed to comply with order to pay rent for post-lease occupation or approach appropriate authority for cyclone relief. Court granted refund prays discharge under clause 14 of agreement.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's prayer for lease extension and compensation dismissed; prayer for refund of security deposit allowed subject to application under Clause-14 of agreement.

Dusmanta Kumar Mohanty Vs the Commissioner… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Orissa HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 34217 OF 2021

¶3

(An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India)

¶4

¶5

Dusmanta Kumar Mohanty ……. Petitioner

¶6

-Versus-

¶7

i) The Commissioner of Endowments, Odisha ii) The State of Odisha represented through the Secretary, Deptt. of Horticulture

¶8

iii) The Collector-cum-Trustee Chairman, Endowments, Dhenkanal iv) The Sub-Collector-cum-Executive Officer, Endowments, Dhenkanal v) The State of Odisha represented Through the Secretary, Deptt. of Law, Bhubaneswar .…… Opp. Parties

¶9

Advocates appeared:

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr. Ghanshyam Muduli, Advocate

¶11

W.P.(C) No. 34217 OF 2021

¶12

For Opp. Parties : Ms. Pratyusha Naidu, Adv. (For Commissioner of Endowments) (For O.P. No.1)

¶13

Mr. Siba Narayan Biswal, Additional Standing Counsel (For O.P. Nos.2, 3 & 5)

¶14

Mr. Bhabani Sankar Panigrahi, Advocate (For O.P. No.4)

¶15

CORAM :

¶16

MR. JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA

¶17

Heard and Disposed of on 07.04.2026

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

By the Bench;

¶20

1. The Petitioner in this writ petition prays for the following

¶21

relief:-

¶22

Prayer

¶23

“In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased:

¶24

W.P.(C) No. 34217 OF 2021

¶25

Page 2 of 11

¶26

i) direct the Opposite Parties to extend the period of agreement for another five years in consider to the loss which has burden by the present petitioner for the Cyclone "Fani" and for the prevailing situation of pandemic; ii) direct the Opposite Parties to consider the representations of the present petitioner which are pending on the table of the said authorities within a period of fifteen days;

¶27

iii) direct the Opposite Parties to consider the loss of the present petitioner and to pay him compensation;

¶28

iv ) direct the Opposite Parties to refund back the amount which they have taken as security deposit for the year 2019,

¶29

v) pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.

¶30

And for this act of kindness, the petitioner shall, as in duty bound, ever pray.”

¶31

2. Mr. Muduli, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits

¶32

that Mahulkholi Cashew Orchard belongs to Shree Narayan Jew bije Kapilash in the district of Dhenkanal (for brevity ‘the Deity’). The Petitioner being the successful bidder in an auction of cashew trees of Mahulkholi Cashew Orchard over Khata

¶33

No.68 of Mauza Mahulkholi under Gondia Tahasil in the district of Dhenkanal, executed an agreement with the Deity represented through Executive Officer, Debottar, Dhenkanal on 15.05.2017

¶34

W.P.(C) No. 34217 OF 2021

¶35

Page 3 of 11

¶36

complying with the conditions of the lease. The lease was for a period of 5 years valid up to 14.05.2022. During continuance of the lease, the Petitioner suffered a huge loss due to Cyclone “Fani”. Hence, he submitted a representation to the CollectorCum-Chairman of the Trust Board of Dhenkanal Debottar on 07.05.2019 to refund the amount he had deposited towards security deposit for 2019-20 financial year. He further prayed to give a rebate in depositing the auction amount for the subsisting period of the lease for the loss he sustained.

¶37

3. It is submitted that Deputy Director of Horticulture, Dhenkanal also submitted a joint verification report with regard to the loss sustained by the Petitioner. Since no action was taken on the representation of the Petitioner, the writ petition has been filed.

¶38

4. It is submitted that the Petitioner has invested more than 45 lakhs for the Cashew Orchard and expected a profit out of the said investment, but due to Cyclone “Fani” the entire Cashew Orchard was destroyed. Thus, the writ petition has been filed to extend the period of agreement for another five years. He also

¶39

W.P.(C) No. 34217 OF 2021

¶40

Page 4 of 11

¶41

prays to consider his representation pending before the Collector, Dhenkanal and Trustee Chairman of the Dhenkanal Debottar.

¶42

5. The Petitioner also prays for adequate compensation or in

¶43

the alternative, to refund the amount he has deposited towards security deposit for the year 2019.

¶44

6. This Court considering the grievance of the Petitioner vide order dated 09.11.2022, directed to maintain status quo over the Mahulkholi Cashew Orchard till the next date.

¶45

7. The said order continued for a considerable period. The matter was then listed on 29.07.2025, when this Court passed the

following order:-

ORDER

29.07.2025

“1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶50

2. Mr. Panigrahi, learned counsel for the Dhenkanal Debottar (Opposite Party No.4) submits that the lease of cashew orchard was given to the Petitioner in the year 2017 for a period of five years. Although the period of lease has expired since 2022 but the Petitioner is occupying the property by virtue of order of status quo dated 9^th November, 2022 which is continuing till date. For occupying the land

¶51

W.P.(C) No. 34217 OF 2021

¶52

Page 5 of 11

¶53

beyond the period of lease the Petitioner has not paid a single pie.

¶54

3. It is submitted by Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Dhenkanal Debottar which has granted the lease of cashew orchard in favour of the Petitioner had not issued any notice demanding the rent/payment for occupying the cashew orchard. He, however, prays for a short adjournment to take instruction as to whether the Petitioner is prepared to pay the money/rent for occupying the land beyond the lease period.

¶55

4. Mr. Panigrahi, learned counsel for the Dhenkanal Debottar, however, submits that the Petitioner has paid Rs.9,00,000/- per annum till 2022.

¶56

5. Hence, the matter stands adjourned to be listed on 8^th August, 2025 by which date, Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioner shall take instruction as to whether the Petitioner is prepared to pay the money for occupation of the land at the rate of Rs.9,00,000/- per annum beyond the period of lease i.e. beyond 2022.

¶57

6. Interim order of status quo dated 9^th November, 2022 passed in IA No. 11733 of 2022 shall continue till next date.”

¶58

8. However, the Petitioner did not comply with the said

¶59

order dated 29.07.2025 in spite of taking several adjournments. Accordingly, the interim order was vacated vide order dated 19.12.2025.

¶60

W.P.(C) No. 34217 OF 2021

¶61

Page 6 of 11

¶62

9. Mr. Panigrahi, learned Counsel for the Debottar, Dhenkanal submits that the representation of the Petitioner has already been disposed of and communicated to him vide letter No.1175 dated 30^th September, 2021 (Annexure-C/4 to the Counter Affidavit). It was stated, inter alia, that the cashew cultivators, who had sustained loss due to Cyclone “Fani” got their compensation from the State Government. Thus, the Petitioner was advised to approach the Block Development Officer for adequate compensation for the loss sustained, if any, for cyclone ‘Fani’.

¶63

10. He further submits that there is no Clause in the agreement under Annexure-2 to compensate the Petitioner for any loss to be sustained during continuance of such agreement. On the other hand, Clause-4 of the agreement clearly indicates as

¶64

under:

¶65

“That, the 2^nd party “The Lessee” shall provide necessary watch and ward for safe custody of cashew trees and other valuable trees standing on the field & properties attached to it at his own cost and cover the risk for the subsisting lease period.”

¶66

W.P.(C) No. 34217 OF 2021

¶67

Page 7 of 11

¶68

11. Thus, the Dhenkanal Debottar is not responsible for any

¶69

loss caused to the Petitioner for Cyclone “Fani”. He further submits that the lease period has already been expired since 2022. But due to continuance of the interim order, the Petitioner managed to occupy the land till the order of status quo was vacated on 19.12.2025. After the interim order was vacated, possession of Mahulkholi Cashew Orchard was taken over by the Debottar, Dhenkanal on 24^th December, 2025 and the cashew orchard has been put to auction. It is further submitted that there is no scope for extension of the lease period in absence of any clause to that effect in the lease deed under Annexure-2. Thus, the prayers made in the writ petition are misconceived and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶70

12. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

¶71

13. Perused the materials on record.

¶72

14. Upon hearing learned Counsel for the parties, it is

¶73

manifest that the lease period of Mahulkholi Cashew Orchard

¶74

granted in favour of the Petitioner has already been expired since 14.05.2022 on expiry of the lease period. But by virtue of the

¶75

W.P.(C) No. 34217 OF 2021

¶76

Page 8 of 11

¶77

interim order, the Petitioner managed to occupy the Mahulkholi Cashew Orchard till 24.12.2025.

¶78

15. It further appears that for the occupation of the Cashew Orchard beyond the lease period, the Petitioner vide order dated 29.07.2025 was directed to convey his preparedness to deposit a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- per annum , but, he failed to comply with such direction in spite of taking several adjournments in the matter.

¶79

16. On perusal of the terms of the agreement, we do not find any clause in the agreement either to extend the lease period or to compensate the Petitioner for any loss to be sustained by him during subsistence of the period of agreement. On the other hand, clause-4 of the agreement at Annexure-2 clearly stipulates that the Petitioner shall keep the cashew trees and the properties attached to the orchard in his safe custody at his own cost and shall also cover the risk for the subsisting lease period. Thus, prayers either for extension of the lease period or to compensate the Petitioner for the loss, if any sustained by him cannot be granted in the present writ petition.

¶80

W.P.(C) No. 34217 OF 2021

¶81

Page 9 of 11

¶82

17. It is categorically stated in the Counter Affidavit that cashew cultivators, who suffered loss during cyclone Fani had approached the concerned Block Development Officer and got their compensation in terms of guidelines of the Government. There is no material on record to show as to whether the Petitioner had approached the Block Development Officer for any compensation or not. Since there is no clause in the agreement to compensate the Petitioner for any loss to be sustained during subsistence of the agreement, this Court is not inclined to grant the said relief.

¶83

18. The Petitioner also claims for refund of the security deposit made in the year 2019. The Petitioner stated to have deposited the security money in terms of the agreement.

¶84

19. In view of the Clause-14 of the agreement, the Petitioner is at liberty to move before the Debottar, Dhenkanal for refund of the security deposit, if any, made for the year 2019 and in that event, the Executive Officer, Debottar, Dhenkanal may consider

¶85

his case in accordance with law.

¶86

W.P.(C) No. 34217 OF 2021

¶87

Page 10 of 11

¶88

20. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. In the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.

¶89

Urgent certified copy of the order shall be granted as per

¶90

rules.

¶91

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

¶92

(S.K. Mishra) Judge

¶93

Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated 7^th April, 2026/Banita

¶94

Signature Not Verified

¶95

Digitally Signed Signed by: BANITA PRIYADARSHINI PALEI Designation: SR. STENOGRAPHER Reason: AUTHENTICATION Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 08-Apr-2026 16:47:13

¶96

W.P.(C) No. 34217 OF 2021

¶97

Page 11 of 11

Dusmanta Kumar Mohanty v. the Commissioner of Endowment,Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dusmanta Kumar Mohanty v. the Commissioner of Endowment,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

Krishna Mohapatra Vs Collector, Cuttack

Tofan Bhoi Vs Collector Puri

Dasamat Marndi Vs State of Odisha

Khetrabasi Sahoo Vs Commissioner of Endowments, Odisha, Bhubaneswar

Lukteswar Patel Vs National Highways Authority of India, New Delhi

Niranjan Rohidas Vs State of Odisha