HRUSHIKESH PANDA Vs. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE right to collect fee from the hat belonging to Salabani Grama Panchayat located in the district of Keonjhar is settled by annual auction. Petitioner was the highest bidder for the year 1980 -81 as would appear from Annexure -1. He was called upon to execute the agreement in the prescribed form and have it registered at his cost failing which acceptance of Petitioner's bid would be vacated and there would be a fresh settlement. On receipt of the notice, Petitioner filed this writ application for quashing of the direction for registering the document and obtained an order of stay of enforcement of the direction.

(2.) THE Grama Panchayat Extension Officer has filed a counter affidavit on behalf of opposite party No. 1 and has contended that under Rule 87(j) of the Orissa Grama Panchayats Rules, 1968, the successful bidder is required to execute a registered agreement with the Grama Panchayat in the prescribed Form -A.

(3.) LEARNED Standing Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Qudrat Ullah v. Municipal Board, Bareilly : A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 396, in support of his contention that the document required registration. Mr. Rath for the Petitioner took the stand that the document which was under consideration before the Supreme Court was a composite one; interest in immovable property had also been created in favour of the lessee apart from the mere right to collect toll and fees. We are inclined to agree with Mr. Rath that the conclusion of the Supreme Court about the requirement of registration was based upon the peculiar facts involved in the case before it and in the present setting, the ratio of the decision may not be applicable. But as we have pointed out, it was within the competence of the State Government to require registration and no grievance can be made of the requirement.