Orissa High Court
Urmila Behera vs Chief General Manager on 30 January, 2026
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 12-Feb-2026 19:21:54
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 22072 of 2024
(In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950).
Urmila Behera .... Petitioner(s)
-versus-
Chief General Manager, Indian Oil .... Opposite Party (s)
Corporation Ltd., Bhubaneswar &
Anr.
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoranjan Mohanty, Sr. Adv.
along with associates
Ms. Subhasree Mohanty, Adv..
For Opposite Party (s) : Ms. Sanjibani Mishra, Adv.
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-20.01.2026
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-30.01.2026
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, assailing the order of rejection dated 04.06.2024, whereby her option in respect of the second plot mentioned in the application for grant of Regular Retail Outlet (Petrol Pump) dealership was rejected for the location specified at Sl. No. 43 i.e., within 2km from IDBI Bank Branch, Sarmuhan towards Balangir on the LHS on SH-42 in the District of Balangir, pursuant to the Advertisement dated 28.06.2023 published in daily 'Samaja'.
Page 1
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 12-Feb-2026 19:21:54
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
(i) The Petitioner came across an Advertisement issued by Indian
oil Corporation Ltd., inviting application for Regular/Rural Outlet (petrol pump dealership) for various locations, including one location situated within 2 km from IDBI Bank, Branch, Sarmuhan towards Balangir on the left-hand-side, as specified in the said advertisement.
(ii) The petitioner, belonging to the OBC category, was eligible to apply for the said dealership and accordingly prepared herself to submit the application. The last date to apply for submission of application under the said advertisement was 27.09.2023, which was subsequently extended to 17.10.2023.
(iii) The Petitioner owns land standing in the name of her father bearing the Khata No. 372/836, Plot No. 402, Survey No. 1976 of Mouza Bhainsa. However, as she intended to establish the petrol pump on the leased land, she was in search of suitable plot. During, such search, she came to know one Panchu Naik, belonging to the SC Category, owned land bearing Khata No. 172, Plot No. 404 in Mouza Bhainsa, and that he was willing to lease out the said plot due to the financialconstraints.
(iv) On 27.09.2023, the Petitioner, along with said Panchu Naik, approached the concerned Registering Authority, where they were informed that since the land owner belongs to SC Category Page 2 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 12-Feb-2026 19:21:54 and the Petitioner belongs to OBC Category, prior permission for execution of the lease was required from the Sub-Collector.
(v) On 16.08.2023, the Petitioner along with Panchu Naik approached the Sub-Collector seeking permission to lease out the plot in favour of the Petitioner, and in the said application, Panchu Naik specifically stated the reasons for leasing the land to the Petitioner.
(vi) On 25.09.2023, possession of the land was handed over to the Petitioner before a Notary Public, as obtaining permission from the Sub-Collector is a time-consuming process.
(vii) The last date for submission of application was 17.10.2023, and by that time the Sub-Collector has not granted permission. Consequently, the Petitioner submitted her application for the dealership on 16.10.2023, indicating both plots, namely Khata No. 372/836, Plot No. 402 and Khata No. 172, Plot No. 404.
(viii) On 0712.2023, the Opp. Party conducted the selection process, in which the Petitioner was duly selected. On 08.12.2023, a copy of the provisional selection in favour of the Petitioner was communicated to her.
(ix) After the provisional selection of the Petitioner, the Opp. Party intimated her to remit a sum of Rs. 40,000/- towards initial security deposit, to be deposited on or before 18.12.2023. Thereafter, on 14.12.2023, the Sub-Collector permission to lease out the land belonging to Panchu Naik, and on 15.12.2023, the lease deed was duly registered.
Page 3 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 12-Feb-2026 19:21:54
(x) Thereafter, the Opp. Party inspected the land offered by the Petitioner and rejected the same on the ground that the land was not abutting the road as prescribed in the Brochure. It was further rejected on the ground that the said land did not fall within the ambit of Group-1 Category, as the relationship between the Petitioner and the landowner/lease holder was mentioned as 'No Relationship'. Consequently, the second plot i.e the leased plot offered by the Petitioner, was rejected. Aggrieved by the foregoing inaction of the Opposite Party No.2, the Petitioner has been constrained to file the present Writ Petition. II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The Petitioner is an unemployed graduate and intended to establish herself by starting her own business. In that regard, she sought to apply pursuant to the advertisement of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., published in the daily 'Samaj', inviting applications for grant of retail outlet dealerships for various locations, including the location situated within 2 km from IDBI Bank Branch, Sarmuhan towards Balangir on LHS on SH-42 of Balangir District.
(ii) The Petitioner submits that she fulfilled the eligibility conditions and she belonged to OBC Category. The first plot stood in the name of her father, and in search of an alternative suitable land, she came across Panchu Naik, belonging to SC Category, who Page 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 12-Feb-2026 19:21:54 owned land bearing Khata No. 172, Plot No. 404 in Mouza Bhainsa and was willing to lease out the said land due to financial constraints.
(iii) Thereafter, the and Panchu Naik approached the Sub-Collector's office seeking permission to lease the said land in favour of the Petitioner. As the process was time-consuming, possession was recorded and a lease arrangement was executed before the notary public, following which the Petitioner submitted her application pursuant to the said advertisement.
(iv) The Petitioner states that the last date for submission of the application was 17.10.2023 and the Sub-Collector had not granted permission by that date, she obtained a Nil Encumbrance Certificate in respect of the said plot and executed an Affidavit/Notary lease deed prior to submission of the application.
(v) The Petitioner further states that she was selected and declared provisionally eligible for allotment of dealership, and a copy of the provisional selection was communicated to her. She was also required to deposit a security amount of Rs. 40,000/- on or before 18.12.2023, along with other relevant documents.
(vi) The Petitioner states that, upon grant of permission of the Sub-
to lease plot, she immediately got the lease deed registered before the Registering officer of Patnagarh, and completed the same within the time stipulated by the Opp. Party for submission of documents.
Page 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 12-Feb-2026 19:21:54
(vii) The Petitioner filed the required documents within the time specified by the Opp. Party. She submitted documents for both plots but requested that the second plot, bearing Khata No. 172, Plot No. 404 of Mouza-Bhainsa, be considered as it was adjacent to the road and deemed more suitable. However, the Opp. Party delayed taking action on the matter.
(viii) Thereupon, the Petitioner approached this Court, which was pleased to direct the Opp. Party to consider and to conduct a site visit for selection and lease out of the better-suited location for establishment of retail outlet.
(ix) The Petitioner further contended that the Opp. Party rejected both the plots: the first on the ground that it was not abutting the road as specified in the Brochure, and the second one on the technical ground that the land did not fall within the ambit of Group-1 Category, as the relationship between the Petitioner and the landowner/lease holder was stated as 'No Relationship'.
(x) The Petitioner states that the Brochure it is specifies that suitable piece of land in the advertised location/area, either by way of ownership/long term lease for a period of 19 yrs 11 months, falls within the purview of the Group-1 Category. It is further stated that in the Brochure and the rejection letter provide that land owned by the family members will be considered as belonging to the applicant (Group-1), subject to the producing a consent letter in the form of Affidavit, which the Petitioner also submitted.
Page 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 12-Feb-2026 19:21:54
(xi) The delay in registration cannot be attributed to the Petitioner, as it was caused by delays at the Govt. Level. The Petitioner should not be prejudice on this account. It is stated that the final registration was completed before the last date of the submission of documents, along with the payment of security deposit of Rs. 40,000/- fixed by the Opp. Party. Prior to this, the the Petitioner had already executed a lease deed before the Notary Public.
(xii) Being aggrieved by the said grievances, the Petitioner has approached this Court seeking appropriate relief and praying for quashing of the rejection letter dated 04.06.2024. III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the submission that the present Writ Petition is not maintainable before this Court and deserves to be rejected in limine.
(i) The Opp. Party submits that the present Writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner, an unsuccessful candidate, challenging the selection process for allotment of petrol pump dealership conducted pursuant to the Brochure for Selection of Dealers for Regular & Rural Retail Outlets, June 2023.
(ii) The Opp. Party further submits that the Petitioner offered two plots for consideration. The candidature with respect to the first plot was rejected on the ground that it was not abutting the road. The second plot was not considered as it does not under Page 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 12-Feb-2026 19:21:54 Group-1 category, since the plot belongs to Panchu Naik and the Petitioner did not hold the plot, on the date of application, either by way of ownership or long-term deed.
(iii) The Petitioner claims eligibility based on a lease deed executed before a Notary Public, although the registered lease deed was executed and registered on 15.12.2023, which subsequent to the date of application submission, namely 16.10.2023.
(iv) The Opp. Party submits that the entire claim made by the Petitioner is misconceived and contrary to the statutory provisions, the governing Brochure for Selection of Dealers of Regular and Rural Retail Outlets, 2023, and settled principles of law.
(v) The Opp. Party further contends that the Petitioner's claim based on notarized lease deed is legally untenable. Since the registered lease deed was executed only after the date of application, the Petitioner does not meet the eligibility criteria under Clause 4(vi)(a) of the Brochure.
IV. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
5. Heard Learned Counsel for parties and perused the documents placed before this Court.
6. In light of the forgoing facts, the Court observes that the primary issue for consideration is whether the Petitioner, whose application was rejected pursuant to the said advertisement for grant of the petrol pump dealership of the Petrol Pump is entitled to get such dealership, is entitled to the relief sought.
Page 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 12-Feb-2026 19:21:54
7. It is observed that the Petitioner had applied as per the Brochure for Selection of Dealers of Regular and Rural Retail Outlets, 2023. As per which she had offered two plots for consideration:
(i) Khata No. 372/836, Plot No. 402, Survey No. 1976 of Mouza Bhainsa, standing in the name of the father; and
(ii) Khata No. 172, Plot No.404 in Mouza Bhainsa, the leased plot.
Both the said plots were rejected by the competent authority. The first plot was rejected on the ground that it was not abutting the road as mandated by the brochure, while the second plot was excluded on the basis that it did not fall within the ambit of the Group-1 category, since the said plot belonged to Panchu Naik on the date of application. A. Definition of "Land" as per the Brochure:
8. It is further observed that, in terms of the Brochure, Clause 4 (vi) under the heading of Eligibility Criteria for individual applicant "Land" is specifically defined as follows:
Group-1: "Applicant having suitable piece of lans in the advertised location/area either by way of ownership/long term lease for a period of 19 years 11 months or as advertised by the OMC". Clause 4(vi)(a): The land should be available with the applicant as on the date of application and should have minimum lease of 19 years and 11 months (as advertised respective oil company) from the date or after the date of advertisement but not later than the date of application. If the offered land is on long term lease and there are multiple owners, then lease deed should be executed by all co-owners Page 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 12-Feb-2026 19:21:54 of the offered plot in case lease deed is not executed by all co-owners, such lease deed shall be treated as invalid.
Clause 4(vi)(f): in addition to above, as and when advised by the OMC, provisionally selected candidate(s) under Group-1 should also upload a copy of any one of the following documents to establish ownership of land offered for the dealership. The documents must have been executed/registered/issued on or before the date of application:-
(a) Registered Sale Deed/ Registered Gift Deed
(b) Registered lease deed for a minimum period of 19 years and 11 months (as advertised by respective oil company).
B. Statutory Mandate Regarding Registration of Lease Deeds:
9. Section 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act, 1908 mandates the compulsory registration of lease deeds relating to immoveable property, where the lease is granted from year to year or for any term exceeding one year. Consequently, a lease for a period of 19 years and 11 months, as prescribed under the Brochure, cannot be legally created, enforced or recognized in the absence of registration.
10. It is well-settled that an unregistered lease deed lacks legal sancity and is inadmissible to confer any right, title, or interest in immoveable property. Execution of a lease deed before a Notary Public does not constitute registration within the meaning of the Registration Act, 1908. The Notaries Act, 1952 does not confer upon a Notary Public the authority to register documents effecting transfer or lease of immoveable property.
Page 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 12-Feb-2026 19:21:54
11. It is further observed that the Petitioner claims eligibility based on a lease deed executed before a Notary Public; however, the registered lease deed was admittedly executed and registered on 15.10.2023, which is subsequent to the date of submission of application, namely 16.10.2023.
12. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the date of application:
16.10.2023, whereas the lease deed in respect of the second plot was registered on 15.12.2023. thus, on the crucial date, the Petitioner admittedly did not possess a duly registered lease deed concerning the said plot. The Petitioner herself had specifically indicated that the second plot be taken into consideration for the purpose of eligibility.
However, in the absence of a registered lease deed as on the relevant date, the Petitioner failed to satisfy the mandatory eligibility conditions. Consequently, the offer of the second plot was legally untenable, rendering the Petitioner ineligible ab initio, and no subsequent registration could cure the inherent defect existing on the crucial date.
13. Thereby, Clause 4(vi)(a) of the Brochure, being a mandatory and non-
derogable condition, unequivocally stipulates that "On the date of application, the candidate must have registered lease deed for a minimum period 19 years and 11 months". The deliberate and explicit use of the expressions "on the date of application" and "registered lease deed" admits of no ambiguity, dilution, or scope for eligibility on the crucial date itself. Admittedly, the Petitioner failed to fulfill this Page 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 12-Feb-2026 19:21:54 essential requirement, and therefore, the condition stood violated in limine, disentitling the Petitioner from consideration. C. Notarised Lease Deed has no legal sanctity:
14. A notarised document is merely an authentication of the execution and signatures of the parties and, by itself, neither creates nor validates any right, title, or interest in immoveable property. It is a settled and well-entrenched principle of law that occupancy rights or leasehold interests can be bought into existence only through duly registered instrument, as mandated by statute. In the absence of such registration, no legal title, interest, or enforceable right can be said to pass or vest in favour of the claimant. Consequently, a notraised lease deed, being devoid of statutory registration, is wholly ineffectual in law and cannot be relied upon for asserting eligibility or legal entitlement.
15. This Court is also of the considered view that a judgment must be read and appreciated in the context of the facts of that particular case, as each case turns on its own distinct and distinguishable factual matrix. The ratio decidendi of a decision cannot be mechanically applied, dehors the factual foundation in which it was rendered. To grant the relief sought by the Petitioner in the present case would not only amount to a misapplication of precedent but would also occasion injustice to the statutory framework and governing guidelines, particularly when the eligibility conditions are explicit, mandatory and uniformly applied to all candidates. Judicial indulgence in such Page 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 12-Feb-2026 19:21:54 circumstances would undermine the rule of law rather than advance the cause of equity.
V. CONCLUSION:
16. In view of the foregoing analysis, and upon an anxious and meticulous consideration of the material facts and attendant circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Petitioner is not entitled to the grant of a Regular Retail Outlet (Petrol Pump) dealership for the location mentioned at Sl. No. 43, namely, within 2 km from IDBI Bank Branch, Sarmuhan towards Balangir on the left-hand side of SH-42 of Balangir District. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the present Writ Petition and is not inclined to accede to the relief prayed for.
17. Accordingly, the Writ Petition, being devoid of substance, stands dismissed.
18. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated 30th January, 2026/ Page 13