Orissa High Court
Utkal Prantiya Rastrabhasa vs Government Of Odisha on 12 March, 2026
Author: K.R. Mohapatra
Bench: K.R. Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 3558 OF 2017
(An application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India)
*****
Utkal Prantiya Rastrabhasa
Prachara Sabha, Cutack ...... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. Government of Odisha, represented through
the Special Secretary General, Administration
Department, Bhubaneswar
2. Director of Estate and Ex-Officio Additional
Secretary to Govt., At-Odisha Secretariat,
Bhubaneswar, Khurda
...... Opp. Parties
Advocates appeared:
For Petitioner : Ms. Sujata Jena, Sr. Advocate
Being assisted by
Ms. Sonali Panda, Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Siba Narayan Biswal,
Additional Standing Counsel
CORAM :
MR. JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
----------------------------------------------------
Heard and disposed of on 12.03.2026
----------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
By the Bench;
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. W.P.(C) No. 3558 OF 2017 Page 1 of 9
2. The Petitioner in this writ petition seeks to assail Letter No.1999/CA, Bhubaneswar, dated 28.01.2017 (Annexure-9) issued by the Director of the Estate and Ex-Officio, Additional Secretary to Government, General Administration Department in rejecting the application filed by the Petitioner for renewal of the lease and thereby impliedly determining the lease of the Petitioner. Consequential direction was also issued therein to the Petitioner to remove the structure thereon within one month from the date of the said issuance of the said letter.
3. Mrs. Jena, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioner submits that pursuant to an application filed by the Petitioner, a land measuring Ac 3.000 dec. situated in Mouza Bhoinagar, Bhubaneswar, pertaining to Drawing Plot No.3 as per Drg. No.C-2072 (for brevity, 'the leasehold property') was leased out in favour of the Petitioner organization. A lease deed was accordingly executed on 22.09.1960 (Annexure-1). Initially the lease was valid for thirty years.
4. During the subsistence of the lease, the Petitioner was directed to surrender an area measuring 146 feet x 460 feet in favour of All India Freedom Fighter Samiti vide Letter No.6497/CA dated 19.05.1984 (Annexure-2).
5. Accordingly, a deed of surrender was executed by the Petitioner on 29.05.1984 (Annexure-3). Subsequently, the Petitioner made a request to grant permanent lease of the leasehold property in its favour to perform its activities without any hindrance. However, the Government in GA Department W.P.(C) No.3558 OF 2017 Page 2 of 9 communicated to the Petitioner vide letter dated 26.03.1985 that the proposal submitted vide letter dated 19.09.1984 would be considered after completion of lease period of thirty years.
6. After completion of thirty years, the Petitioner approached the authority on 17.09.1990 for renewal of lease.
7. On receipt of such application, the G.A. Department directed the Petitioner vide its letter dated 24.04.1991 to submit certain documents and it was submitted in time. On 07.09.1991, the Director of Estate, GA Department intimated the Petitioner to start construction of a building and complete the same within two years over the leasehold property.
8. On 31.10.1994, the Petitioner was granted permission by the Bhubaneswar Development Authority for construction of two storied building. Again, on 03.09.1996 (Annexure-6), the Petitioner made an application to the GA Department for renewal of lease for a period of 99 years.
9. On consideration of such letter, the impugned letter dated 28.01.2017 (Annexure-9) has been issued rejecting the renewal of lease application and directing the Petitioner to vacate the leasehold property and remove the structure within one month from the date of said letter. It was also intimated that in the event the Petitioner failed to comply with the letter within the stipulated period, the lessor would cause removal of the structure at the cost to be recovered from the Petitioner. Assailing the same, the present writ petition has been filed.
W.P.(C) No.3558 OF 2017 Page 3 of 9
10. Mrs. Jena, learned Senior Advocate, further submits, that the application for renewal of lease was rejected on the ground that the lease was granted to the Petitioner for construction of a building to be used for the purpose of office and training school for Rastrabhasa Prachar Sabha, Cuttack. But the Petitioner was using the vacant space and single storied building raised over the leasehold property for marriage mandap, reception and other functions, which created traffic congestion and disturbed the peace and tranquility of the locality.
11. It is submitted that the leasehold property was never used for marriage mandap. Occasionally, it was being used for get- togethers of the members of the Petitioner organization and their families. The leasehold property or the building standing thereon was never used for commercial purposes at any point of time. It was never used for a purpose other than for which it was leased out.
12. She also submits that by virtue of notice dated 08.01.2017, the lease was impliedly determined without affording any opportunity of hearing. Further, the direction to vacate the land within one month was also illegal, as a proceeding under the Odisha Public Premises (Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972, in respect of the leasehold property is still pending against the Petitioner and no final order has yet been passed in the said case.
13. Mrs. Jena, learned Senior Advocate, relies upon the Judgment in Express Newspapers Private Limited & others vrs. W.P.(C) No.3558 OF 2017 Page 4 of 9 Union of India & others reported in AIR (1986) SC 872. Paragraph 87 of the said Judgment reads as under:
"87. The Express Buildings constructed by Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd., with the sanction of the lessor i.e. the Union of India, Ministry of Works and Housing on Plots Nos. 9 and 10, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg demised on perpetual lease by registered lease-deed dt. March 17,1958 can, by no process of reasoning be regarded as public premises belonging to the Central Government under S. 2(e). That being so, there is no question of the lessor applying for eviction of the Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd., under S. 5(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 nor has the Estate Officer any authority or Jurisdiction to direct their eviction under sub-s. (2) thereof by summary process. Due process of law in a case like the present necessarily implies the filing of suit by the lessor i.e. the Union of India, Ministry of Works and Housing for the enforcement of the alleged right of re-entry, if any, upon forfeiture of lease due to breach of the terms of the lease." (Emphasis supplied)
14. Hence, she submits that the direction for eviction is per se illegal and without jurisdiction. She, therefore, prays for setting aside the impugned order under Annexure-9.
15. Mr. Biswal, learned Additional Standing Counsel referring to the Counter Affidavit, submits that he does not dispute the factual position save and except that the leasehold property was not used for the purpose for which it was granted. The leasehold property was being used for marriage mandap and reception. Thus, the application for renewal of lease was rightly rejected under Annexure-9. He further submits that the lease expired in the year 1990, but the application for extension of the lease was filed thereafter.
W.P.(C) No.3558 OF 2017 Page 5 of 9
16. He further submits that for rejection of an application of renewal of lease, the Petitioner is not required to be given an opportunity of hearing. Since the application of the Petitioner for renewal of lease was not considered favorably, the consequence is bound to follow by determining the lease and directing the Petitioner for eviction. As such, there is no illegality in the impugned order under Annexure-9.
17. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
18. Perused the materials placed before this Court. The factual position, as stated by Ms. Jena, learned Sr. Advocate, is not much disputed by Mr. Biswal, learned ASC save and except the allegation that the Petitioner had violated the lease conditions by using the leasehold property for purposes other than that for which it was granted. From the very inception of the lease, the leasehold property was being used as marriage mandap, which violates the terms and conditions of the lease deed.
19. To consider such allegation, we have perused the lease deed at Annexure-1. The lease was granted to the Petitioner for construction of building to be used for the purpose of office and training school for Rashtra Bhasa Prachara Sabha. It is also stated in the lease deed that the leasehold property shall not be used to disturb the peace and tranquility in the locality or neighborhood. No material has been placed before us by the Opposite Parties to justify the allegation that the leasehold property was being used as a marriage mandap. Thus, it is very W.P.(C) No.3558 OF 2017 Page 6 of 9 difficult for the Court to accept the submission of Mr. Biswal, learned Additional Standing Counsel at this stage.
20. A contention was raised by Mrs. Jena, learned Senior Advocate that the lease was determined without affording any opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. In the said impugned order under Annexure-9, the Petitioner was also directed to vacate the land within a period of one month from the date of notice.
21. Admittedly, while considering the application for renewal of lease of the Petitioner, the Director of Estates & Ex-Officio, Additional Secretary to Government, General Administration Department had not given any opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner before rejecting such application. By rejecting the application for renewal of lease, the lease granted to the Petitioner was impliedly determined.
22. Law is no more res integra that before taking away a civil right, an opportunity of hearing to the affected party should be given. In the present case, the lease granted in favour of the Petitioner was determined without affording any opportunity of hearing. Thus, the determination of lease granted in favour of the Petitioner is per se illegal and is not sustainable on the sole ground of violation of principles of natural justice.
23. Further, before directing the Petitioner for eviction, an opportunity of hearing should have been given, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Express Newspapers W.P.(C) No.3558 OF 2017 Page 7 of 9 Private Limited (supra). In the impugned letter under Annexure- 9, while rejecting the application for renewal of lease, the Petitioner was also directed to vacate the leasehold property within one month from the date of notice.
24. It is submitted by Ms. Jena, learned Senior Advocate and not disputed by Mr. Biswal, learned ASC that a proceeding under the Odisha Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972, in OPP Case No.475 of 2012 (CW) is pending before the Estate Officer, BBSR and no final order of eviction has yet been passed in the said case.
25. Thus, the direction to vacate the leasehold property is not at all sustainable in the eye of law. Accordingly, the letter under Annexure-9 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Director of Estate and Ex-officio Additional Secretary, General Administration and Public Grievances Department, Government of Odisha, Bhubaneswar, for fresh consideration of the application for renewal of lease granted in favour of the Petitioner.
26. After providing an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, if the authority is of the opinion that the application for renewal of lease should be rejected, then the Petitioner shall be given a further opportunity of hearing before taking a decision regarding determination of the lease and eviction.
27. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
W.P.(C) No.3558 OF 2017 Page 8 of 9
28. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
29. Interim order dated 1st March, 2017 passed in Misc. Case No.3064 of 2017 stands vacated.
Urgent certified copy shall be granted as per Rules.
(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge (S.K. Mishra) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated 12th March, 2026/Mona Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MONALISA SWAIN Reason: Authentication Location: OHC W.P.(C) No.3558 OF 2017 Date: 16-Mar-2026 12:59:40 Page 9 of 9