Back
2023 Supreme(Ori) 110
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
Arindam Sinha, S. K. Mishra, JJ.
Pluto Plaza Private Limited, Rourkela – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition (C) No. 1979 of 2023
Decided On : 03-02-2023
B. Mohanty, Advocate, A.K. Sharma, Advocate
The government's prerogative to allow conversion of leasehold to ownership only for homestead/residential purpose, and not for commercial purpose, does not amount to discrimination.
Headnote:
Conversion - Leasehold to Ownership - The court upheld the government's prerogative to allow conversion only for leasehold interest granted for homestead/residential purpose, and not for commercial purpose, ruling that it did not amount to discrimination.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner applied for conversion of leasehold to ownership, which was rejected by the Additional District Magistrate based on Schedule VI appended to Odisha Government Land Settlement Rules, 1983.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the government's decision to allow conversion only for homestead/residential purpose and not for commercial purpose did not amount to discrimination, as it was the government's prerogative.
Issues: The issue was whether the rejection of the petitioner's application for conversion of leasehold to ownership based on the government's decision to allow conversion only for homestead/residential purpose amounted to discrimination.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the government's decision to limit conversion to homestead/residential purpose did not discriminate against lessees for commercial purposes, as it was within the government's prerogative.
Final Decision: The writ petition was found to be without merit and was dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Arindam Sinha, J. - Mr. Mohanty, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, impugned is order dated 16th May, 2022 made by the Additional District Magistrate rejecting his client's application for conversion of leasehold to ownership. He submits, his client duly applied for conversion. After the application was admitted, by impugned order there was rejection on reliance of Schedule VI appended to Odisha Government Land Settlement Rules, 1983. He draws attention to clause 1(d) and submits, provision thereunder does not bar conversion of lease granted for commercial purpose. Without prejudice he submits, when the Government has provided for conversion of residential plots, in not doing so in respect of commercial plots is discrimination made between the plot holders.
2. Petitioner has obtained leasehold interest in the land for commercial purpose. We have ascertained that is so. Clause 1(c) in the Schedule is reproduced below.
'(c) The conversion shall be applicable only in respect of land for which the land use specified in the lease-dead/allotment letter is for homestead/residential.'
3. There is no dispute that the land is government land. Government is lessor. Petitioner by the lease has acquired some interest in the land. Purpose of the lease is commercial. Government being lessor had decided to allow conversion only in respect of leasehold interest granted for homestead/ residential purpose. That is the Government's prerogative. It cannot be compelled to also do so in respect of leases for commercial purpose. It cannot be said that thereby there has been discrimination between two categories of people, those who are lessees for homestead/residential purpose and others, who are lessees for commercial purposes. Petitioner being a company cannot complain of discrimination in relation to lessees for homestead/residential purposes since, those lessees are necessarily natural persons. There is no discrimination here.
4. The writ petition is found to be without merit. It is dismissed.
