Orissa High Court
Bigneshraj Patasani vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd on 2 May, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. No.1125 of 2022
Bigneshraj Patasani .... Appellant
Mr. H. Mohapatra, Advocate
-versus-
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., .... Respondents
West Bengal-95 and others
M/s. B. S. Rayaguru and associates, Advocates for Caveateor-
Respondent No.4
CORAM:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
ORDER
02.05.2023
Order No.
01. 1. A complete set of the paper book has been served on Mr. B. S.
Rayaguru, learned counsel appearing for the Caveator-Respondent
No.4.
2. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 25th
July, 2022 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing W.P.(C)
No.5005 of 2020 filed by the Appellant questioning the order dated
20th January, 2020 passed by the Opposite Party No.2-Bharat
Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) cancelling the candidature
of the Appellant for allotment of a retail outlet dealership for
Baramba, in Cuttack District.
3. One of the conditionalities for allotment of the above retail outlet
was that the candidate must possess land within 1 km from
Narayana Chandra Hata towards Sunapala Chhak on the right hand
side of SH-65.
4. The Appellant applied for the retail outlet dealership offering the
land belonging to him which according to him satisfied the above
requirement. While the Appellant was successful in the lottery,
Respondent No.4 did not succeed. Respondent No.4 filed a
complaint before the BPCL alleging that the land of the Appellant
was not within 1 km from Narayana Chandra Hata towards
Sunapala Chhak on the right hand side of SH-65.
5. On receipt of the above complaint, BPCL asked the Appellant to
produce a report of the Tahasildar, Baramba regarding the exact
location of his land.
6. Initially, on 5th September 2019, the Tahasildar, Baramba
issued a letter addressed to BPCL stating that the Appellant's land
did satisfy the locational requirement of being 1 km from Narayana
Chandra Hata towards Sunapala Chhak on the right-hand side of
SH-65. The same letter was also submitted by the Appellant to
BPCL. BPCL then sought a clarification from the Tahasildar,
Baramba by a letter dated 4th October, 2019. Again, on 22nd
October, 2019 the Tahasildar reiterated the earlier letter regarding
the exact location of the Appellant's land. It appears that a further
report was submitted by the Tahasildar, Baramba on 7th January,
2020 contradicting the earlier reports. He now stated that the land
of the Appellant was not situated in between Narayana Chandra
Hata to Sunapala Chhak.
7. Acting on the aforementioned third report of the Tahasildar,
Baramba, BPCL by the letter dated 20th January, 2020 cancelled the
candidature of the Appellant for allotment of the retail outlet. The
said decision was then challenged by the Appellant by filing
W.P.(C) No.5005 of 2020 in this Court.
8. The learned Single Judge has in the impugned judgment dated
25th July, 2022 taken note of all of the above developments. The
lack of clarity of the earlier letters of the Tahasildar including the
one dated 5th September, 2019 prompted BPCL to seek a further
clarification on 16th October, 2019. This time, the Tahasildar by the
letter dated 7th January, 2020 informed BPCL that the plots offered
by the Appellant "are not situated in between Narayana Chandra
Hata and Sunapala Chhak on SH-65. Rather the plots are situated in
between Narayan Chandra Hata and Baramba Town Chaka". It is
the above clarification that prompted the learned Single Judge not
to interfere with the order issued by BPCL cancelling the
candidature of the Appellant.
9. Learned counsel for the Appellant urged that Appellant's land
did satisfy all the criteria and was in fact located between Narayana
Chandra Hata and Sunapala Chhak. He also invited the Court to
examine the map in question which according to him would bear
out his submission.
10. In the present case, BPCL had to necessarily go by the reports
of the Revenue Officials. The Tahasildar, Baramba was in the best
position to determine the exact location of the Appellant's land. The
official version of the Tahasildar was that the Appellant's land did
not satisfy the criteria set down by the BPCL for the purposes of
retail outlet. While it is true that initially two reports were furnished
by the Tahasildar substantiating the Appellant's claim, the third
report was to the contrary. On the question of the precise location of
a piece of land, the High Court would normally defer to the view of
the concerned revenue official, in this case the Tahasildar. He is in
charge of the relevant records and is in the best position to indicate
the exact location of a piece of land within his jurisdiction. In other
words, neither BPCL nor for that matter the learned Single Judge
could have questioned the veracity of a report by the Tahasildar. In
the writ jurisdiction, on the issues of location of a piece of land, the
High Court cannot simply discard the report submitted by the
Tahasildar upon a field verification.
11. Consequently, the Court is unable to find any ground made out
for interference of the impugned judgment of the learned Single
Judge declining to strike down the decision of BPCL cancelling the
Appellant's candidature.
12. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.
(Dr. S. Muralidhar)
Chief Justice
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
M. Panda
MRUTYUNJ Digitally signed by
MRUTYUNJAYA PANDA
AYA PANDA Date: 2023.05.03
10:19:30 +05'30'
