Certificate proceedings for unpaid bid amounts under OPDR Act require a valid registered lease deed; absence of such documentation renders proceedings invalid.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. MISHRA, J.

1. These Writ Petitions have been preferred challenging the certificate proceedings initiated against the Petitioners for recovery of differential unpaid bid amount of the Fishery Sairat Sources for different years ranging from 1998-99 till 2000-01.

2. The point of law involved in all these Writ Petitions is, whether certificate proceedings initiated against the Petitioners for recovery of the unpaid differential bid amount as an arrear of land revenue under the ORISSA PUBLIC DEMANDS RECOVERY ACT , 1962, shortly, hereinafter “OPDR Act”, in absence of a valid lease deed is maintainable. The point of law, being same in all the three Writ Petitions, on the request of learned Counsel for the Petitioners, have been heard together and are being disposed of vide this common judgment. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the facts dealt in W.P.(C) No.20831 of 2024, (Durdyodhana Mallik Vs. State of Odisha & others) is taken up as lead case.

3. The factual matrix of the case in Durdyodhan Mallik (supra) is that there was a public auction for Rananadi Fishery Sairat under Banki Tahasil in the year 1998-99 vide auction notice dated 27.04.1998. The Petitioner took part in the said public auction and the said fishery was settled in his favour for an amount of Rs.18,125/-. Out of Rs.18,125/-, the Petitioner deposited Rs.4,510/- towards the first installment and Rs.4,400/- towards the second installment.

4. It is further case of the Petitioner that though the auction notice was published on 27.04.1998, the concerned Tahasildar adjourned the auction process from time to time. Ultimately, the fishery sairat was settled in favour of the Petitioner in the month of July, 1998, without proper agreement regarding auction and payment structure.

5. The Petitioner failed to pay the rest amount, as he suffered huge loss in the business due to less rain. The Tahasildar issued notice on 26.11.1998 to the Petitioner to clear the unpaid dues by 30.11.1998 and execute the lease deed on stamp paper, failing which auction will be cancelled and there will be re-auction. Since the Petitioner failed to act in terms of the said communication, he was restrained from fishing from the Sairat. Thereafter the Tahasildar, Banki initiated certificate proceeding against the Petitioner, which was registered as Certificate Case No.100/01-02 and Warrant in Form No.A for attachment of movable property was issued to the Petitioner. In the certificate, issued by the Certificate Officer dated 05.02.2002, an amount of Rs.41,730/- was indicated to be due against the Petitioner, which exceeded more than the principal amount indicated in the demand notice.

6. It is further case of the Petitioner that a right to catch fish is a right to profits and is unquestionably immoveable property, requiring registration for its assignment. But in the instant case, no such agreement was executed with the Petitioner by the Opposite Party No.3 (The Tahasildar, Damapada). However, without considering the case of the Petitioner with proper perspective, the certificate case was initiated against the Petitioner, which is illegal, as because section 2(g) of the OPDR Act defines “Public Demand” means any arrear of money specified in Schedule-I and includes any interest, which may by law be chargeable thereon up to the date, on which a certificate is signed under Chapter-II. Paragraph (iii) of Schedule-I prescribes that for any demand payable to the Collector by a person holding any interest, an agreement has to be executed by the person concerned with the Government. But in the instant