BANKIM BEHARI PARIDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this writ application has prayed for an order quashing Annexure -11 i.e. letter of the Tahasildar, Angul demanding enhanced market value and interest for execution of the lease agreement and has also prayed for a direction to the opp. party No. 3, i.e. Tahasildar, Angul to refund the amount deposited by the petitioner under Annexure -9 to the writ application.

(2.) THE petitioner's case is that he is an ex -serviceman who took part in 1962 Indo -China War. The State Government formulated a scheme for leasing out land in favour of ex -serviceman who took part in the said Indo -China War. Accordingly, Town Lease Case No. 66 -61/62 was initiated by the opp. party No. 3 - Tahasildar for allotting a piece of land measuring Ac. 0.20 decimals in favour of the petitioner. Pursuant to the orders passed in the said lease case, the petitioner deposited the amount of premium as directed, in full. The last of such payment was made on 2.5.1989 as per Annexure -1. In the letter dated 2.6.1990 under Annexure -2 to the writ application, the opp. party No. 3 admitted such full payment of premium by the petitioner. The further case of the petitioner is that since his retirement from the Army on 30.6.1990, he moved various authorities of the State Government in the Revenue Department for getting the lease deed registered. The letter dated 9.4.1992 of the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Northern Division, Sambalpur under Annexure -3 to the writ application shows that the said Revenue Divisional Commissioner asked the Sub -Collector, Angul to complete the registration of the lease deed in favour of the petitioner by 30.4.1992. The petitioner has stated that in spite of his visit to the office of the Sub -Collector, Angul in innumerable occasions, no action was taken, for which the petitioner approached this Court in O.J.C. No. 15625 of 1997 in which, in spite of notice being issued, no counter affidavit was filed by the opp. parties and ultimately, the matter was disposed of by order dated 20.11.2000. This Court in the said order directed execution of the lease deed in favour of the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of communication of the said order. It was further observed that if any premium is to be paid, the same should be paid within three months from the date of the said order. It transpires from the writ application that the said order was communicated to the opp. parties, but since no action was taken, the petitioner filed an application for initiating a contempt proceeding which was disposed of by order dated 20.6.2001 directing compliance of the order within eight weeks as a last chance. The opp. party No. 3 thereafter by his letter dated 25.7.2001 intimated the petitioner that since by the date he deposited the premium in full, there being increase in stamp duty, he should submit fresh lease agreement on stamp papers at the revised rate for execution and registration of the lease deed. The petitioner replied to the said letter of the opp. party No. 3 stating that on 3.8.2001 though he went to the office of the Sub -Collector and deposited stamp paper worth Rs. 410/ - and he was requested to wait till lease deed is typed on the stamp paper but the same was returned to him without the lease deed being typed on it. The petitioner was subsequently directed by letter dated 3.4.2004 to deposit a further surh of Rs. 76,235/ - towards differential market value for late payment made on 29.9.1978 and 30.5.1989.

(3.) COUNTER affidavit has been filed by the opp. parties, inter alia, stating that the petitioner instead of making payment of the market value of Rs. 3040/ - on usual terms and conditions as communicated to him vide letter dated 16.5.1967 of the Revenue Divisional Commissioner (N.D.), dragged the matter to different quarters and ultimately paid the full premium on 30.5.1989. It has been further stated in the counter affidavit that after disposal of the contempt application, the petitioner went to the office of the Sub -Collector, Angul on 3.8.2001 at late hours and handed over stamp papers for execution of the lease deed. Though efforts were made for typing out the original and duplicate copy of the deeds, as it was not possible to complete the same, the petitioner was advised to come later.