Back
2010 Supreme(Ori) 744
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
B.N. Mahapatra, J.; B.P. Das., JJ.
SURENDRA NATH GHOSH, TRUST ESTATE AND OTHERS - APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS - RESPONDENT
Writ Petition (C) No. 2990 of 2008 and RVWPET No. 160 of 2010
Decided On : 06-10-2010
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's interpretation of the O.G.L.S. Act, 1962, and Rule 5-B, and the application of the limitations for entertaining a review petition under Order XLVII, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure.
Headnote:
Review Petition - Land Lease Dispute - O.G.L.S. Act, 1962, Rule 5-B - The court decided on issues related to the grant of lease of government land, the validity of an unregistered trust, and the authority to alienate trust property. The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to the lease under the O.G.L.S. Act and the Rules, and that the grant of lease to the petitioner-trust was void. The court dismissed the review petition, stating that no case for review was made out under Order XLVII, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure.
Fact of the Case:
The court reviewed a judgment related to a dispute over the grant of lease of government land to a trust. The review petition raised grounds related to the jurisdiction of the court, violation of natural justice, and incorrect conclusions reached by the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the issues decided were based on the pleadings and arguments raised by the parties. It concluded that the petitioner was not entitled to the lease under the O.G.L.S. Act and the Rules, and that the grant of lease to the petitioner-trust was void. The court dismissed the review petition, stating that no case for review was made out under Order XLVII, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the grant of lease, the entitlement of an unregistered trust to the lease, and the authority to alienate trust property. The court also addressed the grounds raised in the review petition related to jurisdiction and violation of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the O.G.L.S. Act, 1962, and Rule 5-B. It also considered the definition of 'person' under Section 2(b-2) of the O.G.L.S. Act. The court emphasized the limitations for entertaining a review petition under Order XLVII, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the review petition, stating that no case for review was made out under Order XLVII, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure.
JUDGMENT :
B.N. Mahapatra, J. - This Review Petition has been filed with a prayer to review the judgment dated 02.07.2010 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 2990 of 2008.
2. Though in the review petition several grounds have been taken at the time of argument Mr. R.K. Mohanty, Learned Counsel for the review-Petitioners restricted them to the following grounds.
The first ground raised by Mr. Mohanty, is that the Writ Petition was filed with a prayer for quashing certain conditions imposed in the Order Dated 25.09.2007 (Annexure-2) passed by O.P. No. 2-Collector. Puri while approving the lease of permanent Pattadar status as settled by O.P. No. 3-Tahasildar, Puri in favour of the Petitioner-Trust. But while disposing of the Writ Petition this Court has exceeded its jurisdiction and decided certain issues beyond the prayer made by the Petitioner and even not challenged by either party. Such a course adopted by this Court is not permissible under law. In support of his contention, he relied upon two decisions of the Apex Court in V.K. Majotra Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, and in New Delhi Municipal Committee Vs. State of Punjab, etc. etc., .
The second ground for review is that this Court relied upon certain materials available in the Lower Court Records which were produced before the Court after closure of arguments. The Petitioner did not get any opportunity to have his say on those materials, which amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice.
The third ground of challenge is that various conclusions including commission of fraud, mala fide intention of the members of the Trust to alienate the trust properties etc. arrived at by this Court are irrelevant and incorrect.
3. To deal with the grounds of challenge taken by Mr. Mohanty, it is necessary to know the issues decided by this Court while disposing of the Writ Petition, which are as follows:
(i) Whether the Collector, Puri is justified in imposing the terms and conditions while approving the leasehold land in question in favour of the Petitioner- Trust on permanent Pattadar status in his Order Dated 25.09.2007 (Annexure-2) passed in BPL Case No. 20 of 2005?
(ii) Whether the lease could have been granted in favour of the Petitioner-Trust at the first instance vide Order Dated 10.09.2004 in Balu Lease Renewal Case No. 4 of 2004 pursuant to which lease renewal agreement (Annexure-1) was executed on 3.10.2005?
(iii) Whether the lease in question could have been renewed in the year 2004 with retrospective effect from 08.11.1970 for 60 years in the name of the Petitioner-Trust on the basis of an application stated to have been filed by the Petitioner-trust on 26.11.1971 before the Collector, Puri?
(iv) Whether an unregistered Trust in relation to immovable property is valid and is a legal entity so as to be entitled for the grant of lease under the OGLS Act and the Rules framed thereunder?
(v) Whether the members of the Trust are entitled/authorized to alienate trust property in terms of the Trust deed?
All other conclusions including commission of fraud, "mala fide intention of the members of the Trust to alienate the trust property by executing Power of Attorney dated 26.02.2005 and the direction to resume the property issued in the Writ Petition are consequential and ancillary. Even if the conclusions, i.e., fraud and mala fide intention of the parties to alienate the trust property etc. are kept out of consideration or would have been kept out of consideration, the ultimate result would have been the same. In any event, the conclusions with regard to fraud, mala fide intention of the parties to alienate the trust property etc. have not been taken into consideration while dealing with the question of Petitioner's entitlement for grant of lease of government property in question under the O.G.L.S. Act and the Rules.
4. To deal with the first ground of challenge, it is relevant to know whether all the above five issues have been decided by this Court on the basis of ple
