Orissa High Court
Biswamohan Pattnaik vs State Of Odisha And Others on 18 April, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.3768 of 2018
(Through Hybrid mode)s
Biswamohan Pattnaik .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Advocates appeared in this case:
For petitioner : Mr. Prafulla Kumar Rath, Advocate
For opposite parties : Mr. A. K. Sharma, AGA
CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of hearing and Judgment: 18.04.2023
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. The writ petition was moved before this Bench on 27th March,
2023. On behalf of petitioner it was submitted, of documents
impugned in the writ petition, letter dated 23rd November, 2017 was
most offensive. Petitioner had put up racks in the shop-room. There
had been made demand for payment of increased monthly licence fee,
on allegation of total area of occupation at 9908.99 square feet,
including the mezzanine floor.
2. Pleadings are complete and the writ petition is taken up for
// 2 //
hearing and disposal.
3. Mr. Rath, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and
draws attention to original licence by order dated 15th April, 2004.
The permission was with effect from 21st May, 2002 to 20th May,
2005. There was a term for extra licence fee to be charged, on
permissible permanent/temporary structure, from date of construction.
Extension of the licence from 21st May, 2005 to 31st March, 2008 was
made by order dated 27th March, 2008. The orders granting
permission had required petitioner to execute successive lease deeds,
which were executed.
4. Mr. Rath draws attention to order dated 27th March, 2023,
wherein there was direction, inter alia, for production of measurement
sheet by the counter. He submits, impugned letter was purportedly
based on a calculation of alleged area occupied, signed by the
Assistant Engineer on 15th September, 2015. Inspite of the direction,
measurement sheet was not disclosed in the counter but the same
calculation sheet, annexed. He submits, the demand being baseless is
thus demonstrated.
5. Mr. Sharma, learned advocate, Additional Government
Advocate appears on behalf of State and points out from paragraph 10
in the counter that petitioner is enjoying the shop hall as made into
three floors (ground, mezzanine and first floor), all being used for
// 3 //
commercial purpose. He submits further, it is not a calculation sheet
but a measurement sheet giving dimensions measured of the ground,
mezzanine and first floors under occupation of petitioner. Mr. Rath on
instruction submits, only part of the first floor is being used for
commercial purpose.
6. The sheet bearing particulars of floor area, signed by the
Assistant Engineer on 15th September, 2015, has been disclosed
immediately after impugned letter dated 23rd November, 2017, in the
writ petition. It also stands disclosed in the counter. The particulars,
taking them to be measurement of the floors, do not mention nature of
user. In the circumstances, a clear basis for the demand does not
emerge. That being so, impugned letter dated 23rd November, 2017 is
set aside and quashed. Opposite party no.3 will take measurement of
floor areas under occupation of petitioner and indicate nature of user.
On basis of such measurement, the department will raise fresh
demand of lease rent on petitioner.
7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
(Arindam Sinha)
Judge
Prasant
