Orissa High Court
Tarini Ranjan Mishra vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opp. ... on 27 November, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) NO.15957 OF 2021
In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India.
Tarini Ranjan Mishra .... Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opp. Parties
Advocates appeared in this case:
For Petitioner : M/s. G.K. Mohanty, S.S. Kanungo, S.K.
Gadanayak, A. Garanaik & S. Sahoo,
Advocates
For Opp. Parties : Mr. S.B. Mohanty,
Addl. Government Advocate
[OP No.1]
Mr. D. Mohapatra, Sr. Advocate with M/s.
M. Mohapatra, M. Pradhan, J.M. Barik &
P.K. Singhdeo, Advocates
[OP Nos.2 & 3]
M/s J.K. Khuntia, H.S. Deo, B.K. Mohanty
& K. Pratihari, Advocates
[OP Nos.4 to 6]
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD
JUDGMENT
Page 1 of 8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of hearing & judgment : 27.11.2025
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PER DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD,J.
Petitioner is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing letters dated 23.03.2021 and dated 22.04.2021 respectively at Annexures-4 & 6 issued by OP Nos.2 & 3 to the collective effect that his candidature in respect of auction dated 10.03.2021 (hereafter "First Auction") comprising Plot No. K/4/1306 admeasuring 1250 sq. ft. having been cancelled, he has been denied allotment of plot No.K-5/477 admeasuring 2037 sq.ft. comprised in the auction held on 25.03.2021 (hereafter "Second Auction").
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, in support of the petition prayer, vehemently urged the following grounds:
(a) There is no restriction for participating in multiple auctions, although the claim has to be confined to only one of the plots, subject to certain terms & conditions. However, the impugned letters proceed on a contra proposition.
(b) Admittedly, petitioner was the second highest bidder in the First Auction, the first highest bidder being one Smt. Subasini, who withdrew her candidature with no notice to the petitioner, who came to know of the Page 2 of 8 same only a day before the Second Auction was conducted. The BDA, having permitted his participation in the Second Auction, despite the said withdrawal of Subasini, now cannot turn around to deny the plot on the ground that petitioner is the deemed highest bidder in the First Auction.
Such a stand spurns reason, logic & justice.
(c) The Second Auction has yielded a larger site to the predecessor of OP Nos.4, 5 & 6, i.e., Intervenors for a price of Rs.80,03,000/-, when petitioner‟s quote was Rs.86,63,000/-. The Apex Court has ruled that the disposal of public property should yield highest revenue to the State & its entities, which aspect has not been adverted to in the impugned letters.
3. Learned Panel Counsel appearing for the BDA and the learned counsel appearing for the private OPs, vehemently opposed the petition making submission in justification of the impugned letters, whereby petitioner‟s candidature in both the auctions have been cancelled and the pre-deposit amount has been forfeited. They contend that the allotment by way of auction has been done in favour of private OPs on the normative basis, as has been reflected in the Auction Brochures and therefore, the same cannot be faltered. Learned counsel appearing for the private OPs contends that his clients having deposited entire amount of Rs.80,03,000/- Page 3 of 8 way back in July, August, September of 2021, interference of this Court would cause loss & injustice to them and therefore, for no fault of theirs, they cannot be put to prejudice.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter as under and for the following reasons:
4.1. There is a lot of force in the submission of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that whenever a public property is disposed of by way of auction or such other modes, the same should yield highest revenue to the State & its entities like the BDA vide Manohar v The State of Maharashtra, 2025 INSC 900 and therefore, by placing a pedantic interpretation on Clauses 6.8, 6.9, 8.13 & 11.4 of the Brochure, a stand that would breach this norm laid down by the Apex Court, cannot be sustained.
Any norm in an Auction Brochure, whatever be its literal meaning, has to be construed consistent with the rule of fetching highest yield to the Exchequer. Learned Panel Counsel appearing for the BDA very fairly cottons with this proposition.
4.2. In the First Auction, petitioner was the second highest bidder and one Smt. Subasini, the first highest bidder withdrew from the fray and she Page 4 of 8 has been allotted other site in some other public auction. The bid of petitioner was Rs.72,72,000/- in the First Auction and was Rs.86,63,000/- in the Second Auction, of comprising other property, whereas the bid of private OPs, who were second highest bidders, was Rs.80,03,000/- in respect of the same property. That being the position, a pedantic construction of the Brochure Guidelines has resulted into allotment of a larger site to the private OPs at a considerably lesser price going by arithmetics. The second impugned letter is dated 22.04.2021 and the writ petition was filed on 29.04.2021, that too when the Covid Pandemic was full blown. A Co-ordinate Bench, vide ad interim order dated 07.06.2021, had said as under:
"I.A. No.7078 of 2021
Heard.
It is observed in the event the disputed Plot No.K-5/477 under Kalinga Nagar Plotted Development Scheme of Bhubaneswar Development Authority is not assigned to anybody, the same shall not be assigned without leave of this Court.
I.A. stands disposed of.
As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a print out of the order available in the High Court's website, at par with certified copy, subject to attestation by the concerned Advocate, in the manner prescribed vide Court's Notice No.4587, Dated 25th March, 2020 as modified by Court's notice No.4798, dated 15th April, 2021." Page 5 of 8 Despite that, the provisional allotment letter has been issued by the BDA, that too, without mentioning anything about the said order. No explanation is offered for such a grave lapse. Once the auction proceedings are put in challenge, the doctrine of lis pendens enacted under Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is attracted even to the writ proceedings vide Apex Court decision in S.A.L. Narayan Row v. Ishwarlal Bhagwadas, AIR 1965 SC 1818, regardless of notice of said order qua the private OPs. These OPs can claim whatever right they have only under the BDA, which was bound by lis pendens and therefore private OPs too are.
4.3. All the above being said, one more development happened in the Court, which needs to be mentioned. Petitioner offered to pay totally a sum of Rs.1,25,00,000/-(rupees one crore twenty-five lakh) only, instead of Rs.86,63,000/-, for the very price in question. He also agreed to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (rupees ten lakh) only by way of solatium to the private OPs. He also agreed to leave the forfeited amount with the BDA, which shall pay the same to private OPs, as part of solatium. With this arrangement, the amount paid by private OPs has to be refunded to them along with interest that has actually accrued thereon, all these days. Thus, it is a „win-win situation‟ for all.
Page 6 of 8 4.4. Counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo broadly to the above effect which reads as under:
"That upon being instructed by the petitioner, the ld. counsel on his behalf offers to pay Rs.1,25,00,000/-( rupees one crore twenty five lakhs only) to BDA and an amount of Rs.10,00,000/-(rupees ten lakhs only) to the opposite party no.4, 5 & 6 as solatium as full & final bidding price to secure the Plot No.K-5/477(Area, 2037 sqft. The above offer is based on the instruction obtained from the petitioner in course of hearing." (sic) In the above circumstances, this petition is disposed off with the following directions:
(i) A Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned letters dated 23.03.2021 & dated 22.04.2021 respectively at Annexures-4 & 6.
(ii) A Writ of Mandamus issues directing OP Nos. 2 & 3-BDA to allot the Plot No. K-5/477 admeasuring 2037 sq.ft. pursuant to the auction dated 25.03.2021 within four weeks on petitioner remitting a sum of Rs.1,25,00,000/- (rupees one crore and twenty-five lakh) only in five equalized fortnightly installments, reckoned from this day.
(iii) Petitioner shall deposit Rs.10,00,000/- (rupees ten lakh) only with the Registry of this Court within six weeks reckoned from today, which shall be released to OP Nos.4, 5 & 6 without brooking delay, if claim is made by them within four weeks from this day, subject to the condition that they shall not challenge this judgment. If no claim is made by the said OPs within the period prescribed above, this amount shall be remitted to the account Orissa State Legal Services Authority within eight weeks.Page 7 of 8
(iv) The OP Nos.2 & 3 shall refund to OP Nos.4, 5 & 6 a sum of Rs.
80,03,000/- (rupees eighty lakh & three thousand) only along with all the interest that has accrued thereon and further pay to them petitioner‟s pre- deposit amounts that have been forfeited by virtue of impugned letters, in respect of both the auctions, within two weeks of petitioner paying the moneys as mentioned in the preceding directions.
(v) The formalities of executing & registering the conveyance in respect of subject site shall be accomplished by the OP Nos.2 & 3 within an outer limit of two months, reckoned from the date last of the installments is remitted by the Petitioner, who shall also bear other expenses such as stamp duty, registration fee, etc.
(vi) If any difficulty arises in giving effect to the intent & content of this judgment, party concerned may seek further orders/directions by moving an appropriate application. However, should the petitioner fail to comply with the directions herein above issued, the writ petition shall be treated as having been dismissed for all practical purposes.
Now, no costs.
Web copy of the judgment to be acted upon by all concerned.
Dixit Krishna Shripad,
Judge
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Signed by: MADHUSMITA MALLICK
The 27th day of November, 2025/Madhusmita
Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK
Date: 29-Nov-2025 13:07:28
Page 8 of 8