Advocates:
['M/S S P MISRA', 'S K SAHOO', 'M/S BANSIDHAR BAUG', 'M R BAUG', 'R R BAUG', 'G R SAHOO', 'R R JETHI', '', 'A P MISRA', 'S NANDA', 'BIBHUTI BHUSAN MISHRA', '', 'NIRANJAN BEHERA']

Page 1 of 3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.17732 of 2010

Smt. Subasini Choudhury

….

Petitioner

Mr. B. Baug, Advocate

-versus-

State of Orissa and others

….

Opposite Parties

Mr. Debakanta Mohanty, A.G.A.

CORAM:

THE CHIEF JUSTICE

JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

Order No.

ORDER

04.04.2022

11.

1. The challenge in the present petition is to a notice dated 29^th

August 1991 issued by the General Administration Department,

Government of Odisha determining the lease of Plot No.3, Unit-

III, Bhubaneswar allotted in favour of “The Matrubhumi”, the

Managing Proprietor of which was one Mr. Ram Chandra Kar

son of Mr. Banchhanidhi Kar.

2. The plea of the present Petitioner is that she was a beneficiary

under a Will executed by Mr. Kar on 14^th November 1995. She

applied for probate of the said will by filing Probate Misc. Case

No.5 of 2003. However, the probate was refused by the Trial

Court by an order dated 15^th May 2004. It appears that the said

order dated 15^th May 2004 has been challenged by the present

Petitioner in FAO No.251 of 2004 which is pending.

3. It is pointed out by Mr. Debakanta Mohanty, learned

Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State that

even during the lifetime of Mr. Ram Chandra Kar the lease stood

resumed. He draws attention to the third unnumbered paragraph

Page 2 of 3

of the preamble to the Office Order dated 29^th August 1991

which reads as under:

“And whereas the lessee was directed in this Department

letter No.8819 dt.24.6.91 to show cause as to why the

lease shall not be terminated under clause 4 (i) on

aforesaid ground. The cause showed in the letter dated

1.7.91 is not at all satisfactory.”

4. Mr. Mohanty accordingly points out that the resumption of the

lease became final on 29^th August 1991 during the lifetime of Mr.

Ram Chandra Kar with him not challenging the resumption.

Accordingly, the locus standi of the present Petitioner to

maintain the present challenge is questioned.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks to urge that no proper

show cause notice was in fact issued to Mr. Ram Chandra Kar

prior to resumption of lease. Unfortunately, Mr. Kar himself

raised no such grievance. He appears to have filed a reply on 1^st

July 1991 to the notice issued to him on 24^th June, 1991.

Therefore, it is factually incorrect on the part of the present

Petitioner to assert that no notice was issued to Mr. Kar during

his lifetime.

6. As on the date the Will was executed i.e. 14^th November 1995

by Mr. Kar bequeathing the lease in respect of the plot in

question in favour of the present Petitioner, had no valid right,

title or interest vis-à-vis the plot in question to be bequeathed in

favour of the present Petitioner. It is another matter that the

bequest has itself been questioned by the contesting Respondents

in FAO No.251 of 2004 who claim to be the real legal heirs of

Mr. Kar.

Page 3 of 3

7. Therefore, notwithstanding the outcome of FAO No.251 of

2004, the present Petitioner has no locus standi to question the

resumption of the lease on the basis of the Will dated 14^th

November 1995 since on that date the lease already stood

resumed by the State. With there being no challenge to the

resumption by Mr. Kar during his lifetime, it is not possible to

entertain the challenge on behalf of the present Petitioner only

because in the Will dated 14^th November 1995 she shown as a

beneficiary vis-à-vis the said plot. That was not a valid bequest

and is therefore unsustainable in the eye of law.

8. For the aforementioned reasons, the Court finds no merit in the

present petition and it is dismissed as such.

(Dr. S. Muralidhar)

Chief Justice

(R.K