JUDGMENT :

B.P. Routray, J.

1. The matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard Mr. S.J. Biswal, learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr. B. Bhuyan, learned Special Counsel for State (OPID).

3. Order dated 2^nd February, 2023 of the Designated Court (OPID), Cuttack is impugned in the present appeal. The background facts leading to filing of the appeal are to the effect that, the Appellant is an accused in EOW P.S. Case No.9 dated 15^th March, 2015 for alleged commission of offences under Sections 467/468/471/406/420 I.P.C. and Section 6 of the OPID Act. Along with Appellant, his wife namely Pankajini Jena, M/s. Sarala Ralcon Pvt. Ltd. and other accused persons are also implicated. An ad interim order of attachment under Section 3 of the OPID Act was issued for attaching their landed properties to the extent of Ac.95.074 dec. and in the meantime, same has been made absolute by the Designated Court.

4. On 25^th May, 2015 an instruction was issued by the Superintendent of Police, EOW, CID, Crime Branch to the District Sub-Registrar, Khurda requesting him not to effect any sale/purchase/transfer of the landed properties in the names of the Appellant, his wife and M/s. Sarala Realcon Pvt. Ltd. This was challenged before the Designated Court by the Appellant. The Designated Court in the impugned order dated 2^nd February, 2023 rejected the prayer of the Appellant and refused to grant him any relief in respect of said instruction of the Superintendent of Police, EOW. These are all undisputed facts.

5. At the outset, it needs to be mentioned here that specific prayer of the Appellant before the Designated Court was in respect of the properties situated in Plot No.112 measuring area of Ac.0.450 dec and Plot No.111 measuring area Ac.0.30 dec. under Khata No.180/172 of Mouza Tiranapada, P.S./Tahasil- Balianta, District – Khurda. Mr. Biswal, learned counsel for the Appellant also confines his prayer in respect of said properties only before this court.

6. Mr. B. Bhuyan, learned Special Counsel fairly admits that the properties in plot No.112 and 111 under Khata No.180/172, as stated above, is not included in the schedule of properties extending Ac.95.074dec, in respect of which ad interim attachment order was passed and made absolute subsequently by the Designated Court. It is further admitted by Mr. Biswal as well as by Mr. Bhuyan that no such order of ad interim attachment in terms of Section 3 of the OPID Act has been passed till date in respect of the properties pertaining to Plot No.111 and 112 under Khata No.180/172 of Mouza Tiranapada.

7. This court in the case of M/s. Hi-Tech Estates & Promoters (P) Ltd., 2017(I) ILR – CUT -83, while deciding on a similar issue regarding instructions issued by the investigating officer in a matter concerning commission of offences under the OPID Act prohibiting sale/purchase etc, have observed that the executive cannot deprive a person of his property without specific legal authority. The relevant observation of this court is reproduced below:-

“9. Article 300-A of the Constitution of India provides that no personal shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. Deprivation of property comes in various ways, such as destruction or confiscation or revocation of a proprietary right granted by the proprietor, seizure of goods and immovable property from the possession of individual or assumption of control of a business, in exercise of the police power of a State. Under the Constitution, the Executive cannot deprive a person of his property (any kind) without specific legal authority which can be established in a court of law, however, laudable the motive behind may be such deprivation. The expression of authority of law means by or under any law made by the competent legislature. Admittedly, in the present case, no seizure has been effected under Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. The Superintendent of Police, E.O.W., CBI, Crime Branch has issued a notice to the Sub-Registrar, Jatni for prohibi