IMPORTANT POINT
Application for conversion from leasehold to freehold must necessarily be consistent with and compliant to governing provisions of policy which has been framed by State government.

JUDGMENT :

Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J

1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. This appeal arises from a judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of Orissa dated 12 January 2018.

4. On 30 September 1981, a lease of a plot bearing No F/37 admeasuring 75 feet by 100 feet described as Drawing No BS-136 (R) Mouza-Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar, was granted to the respondent by the State Government in the General Administration Department [“GA Department”] for a period of ninety years under the Government Grants Act 1895. On 18 July 2003, the State government formulated a scheme to allow conversion of residential leasehold plots under the GA Department within the area of Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation into freehold land. The policy, inter alia, contained the following condition:

“Lessees who have encroached or unauthorisedly occupied government land anywhere within Bhubaneswar municipal corporation limits would not be eligible to be covered under the scheme unless they vacate the unauthorised occupation.

5. On 15 September 2003, the respondent applied for conversion of the leasehold plot to freehold. In response to the application, the Revenue Inspector in the GA Department recorded on 22 November 2003 that:

“Order on the above file I have visited to the site of Drawing Plot No. N/4-37/F (75x100). Drawing No.BS-136 (R), Nayapalli, corresponding to the 1991-92 Final Settlement Revenue Plot No. 100/3090 Area ACO. 172 under Khata no.1020 n Unit XVI, MZ – Jayadev Vihar and Board, two storied building has been constructed as per approval building plan. But lessee has encroached Govt. land (which was kept as open space) in front of the plot, 60 x 63, by way of illegible fence and Garden. Lessee may be asked to vacate the encroachment.” (Emphasis supplied)

6. On 13 May 2004, the respondent was directed by the Land Officer in the GA Department to vacate the area of unauthorised occupation, recording thus:

“In inviting a reference to the subject cited above, I am directed to say that during the field enquiry it has come to the notice that you have unauthorizedly occupied Govt. Land measuring 60’ x 63’ by covering barbed wire fencing and using the same for garden purpose.

You are therefore, requested to vacate the above land immediately and report compliance within 15 days for consideration of your conversion application.” (Emphasis supplied)

7. Four years later, On 6 August 2008, the respondent addressed a communication to the Land Officer with reference to the letter dated 13 May 2004, stating that he had already sent a reply on 19 April 2006, a copy of which was enclosed stating that there existed no barbed wire fencing and “no encroachment now exists”. The letter dated 19 April 2006, however, contained a statement that:

“But I am told that in a communication (not received by me) I have been asked to vacate a portion of Government land reportedly occupied by me unauthorisedly with barbet wire fencing.” (Emphasis supplied)

Hence, though in his letter dated 6 August 2008, the respondent stated that he had already furnished a reply on 19 April 2006 to the letter dated 13 May 2004, meaning thereby, that the letter dated 13 May 2004 was in possession of the respondent when he submitted the reply, the purported letter dated 19 April 2006 suggested that the communication had not been received. Be that as it may, on 21 December 2009, the respondent wrote a letter to the Directorate of Estates stating that no barbed wire fencing or encroachment existed at present around his plot. On 28 December 2009, proceedings were initiated against the respondent by issuing a notice under Section 4(1) of the Orissa Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act 1972 [“Act”]. By the notice, the respondent was called upon to show cause as to why an order of eviction should not be made.

8. Subsequently, on 30 June 2010, in response to a representation dated 21 December 2009, the GA Department was directed to re-enquire. On 30 June 2010, the follow