Execution of sale deeds must consider current market conditions rather than historical fixed prices if delays are not attributable to the buyer, aligning with principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT

By the Bench;

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. One Raghunath Mishra has filed this writ petition seeking for a direction to the Sub-Collector and Executive Officer, Nayagarh, Debottar in the district of Nayagarh-Opposite Party No.2 to execute the sale deed in respect of the land of the deity Shri Jagannath Jew, Nayagarh pertaining to Pot No.265/20 of Khata No.188 to an extent of Ac.0.04 decimals out of Ac.0.90 decimals corresponding to Hal Plot No.124 of Hal Khata No.77 of village Jamusahi in the district of Nayagarh (for brevity ‘the Case Land’) in his favour. During pendency of the writ petition said Sri. Raghunath Mishra (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Petitioner’) died. Hence, his Legal Heirs (hereinafter referred to as ‘the substituted Petitioners’) being substituted, are pursuing this writ petition.

3. Mr. Dash, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the substituted Petitioners submits that the order passed in OA No.179 of 1981 under Section 19 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments, Act, 1951 (for brevity ‘the Act’) was challenged before the State Government under Section 19 (4) of the Act. The State Government vide order dated 4^th February, 1984 enhanced the consideration amount to Rs.1,50,000/- per acre for alienation of the Case Land. The Case Land is a part and parcel of a bigger plot. The Petitioner intended to purchase the Case Land and accordingly, deposited Rs.6000/- towards consideration money pursuant to Letter No.387 dated 21^st July, 1984 (Annexure-1) issued by the Executive Officer, Debottars, Nayagarh. On receipt of the consideration amount, the Petitioner was communicated vide Letter No.433 dated 7^th August, 1984 (Annexure-3) to get the sale deed executed at his cost by 27^th August, 1984 and the registration fee was assessed at RS.781.50/-. On receipt of the said letter, the Petitioner requested the Executive Officer-Opposite Party No.2 to execute the sale deed in the name of his wife, namely, Premalata Mishra-substituted Petitioner No.1(a). Although the request of the Petitioner was accepted but, no step was taken to execute the sale deed in favour of his wife. Hence, the Petitioner vide his letter dated 29^th December, 1993, (Annexure-4), requested Executive Officer-Opposite Party No.2 to execute the sale deed in his name. The said letter was also not paid any heed.

4. It is further submitted that in the meantime, the period in which, the sale deed was required to be executed as per the direction of the Commissioner of Endowments, Odisha, Bhubaneswar expired. Thus, an application was filed by the Executive Officer-Opposite Party No.2 to extend the period provided for execution of the sale deed. However, the said application was dismissed vide order dated 21^st July, 2004 by the Commissioner of Endowments. Although the Petitioner and his wife were parties to the said petition for extension of time, but no notice was served on them. Thus, the Petitioner remained in dark about the developments. However, from the order dated 21^st July, 2004, it was apparent that the Executive Officer-Opposite Party No.2 being conscious of the fact that said Raghunath Mishra had requested to execute the sale deed in favour of his wife, namely, Premalata Mishra and the request was acceded to by the Executive Officer, made such application for extension of time. Had the Petitioner been noticed, he could have demonstrated his bona fide willingness and readiness for execution of the sale deed. The Petitioner remained under an impression that his request was being considered. Accordingly, he wrote letter dated 30^th July, 2007 (Annexure-5) by registered post intimating Opposite Party No.2 about