[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Smt. Rajani Devi Banka And Another vs Union Of India And Others .... Opposite ... on 10 February, 2026
Author: Murahari Sri Raman
Bench: Murahari Sri Raman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 1044 of 2004
And
W.P.(C) No. 18693 of 2014
W.P.(C) No. 1044 of 2004
Smt. Rajani Devi Banka and another .... Petitioners
Mr. M.C. Jena, Advocate
-versus-
Union of India and others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI
Mr. N. Sarkar, Advocate for O.Ps.2 & 3
W.P.(C) No. 18693 of 2014
Ratan Agencies, Sambalpur .... Petitioner
Mr. B. Mohanty, Advocate
-versus-
Collector, Sambalpur and others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. M.C. Jena, Advocate for O.P.-3
Mr. Srinivas Patnaik, Advocate for O.Ps.4 & 5
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
ORDER
Order No. 10.02.2026
34. 1. There is no cavil of doubt that a lessee who was permitted
to run the petroleum retail outlet has occupied the same more than
the original period provided therefor. Despite the order of vacating
the said demised land, the litigation continued in the docket of the
Court and the hard reality which we perceived today that the lessor is
unable to recover the said land, despite being blessed with an order
to recover possession. Interestingly, an interim order is passed
directing the so-called lessee to pay damages @ Rs.20,000/- (Twenty
Thousand only) per month, despite the fact that the land where the
retail outlet is operating is a prime location within Sambalpur town.
2. By passage of time, the rental market value has surged not
only because of the urbanization but also the infrastructural
development having taken place rapidly. The rent, which was fixed
way back in the early 1960s, cannot be taken to be a reasonable
market rent in the year 2025. The Company is merely continuing to
occupy and running the said outlet by appointing a dealer, who has
also filed the writ petition, which is tagged with the main writ
petition.
3. The dispute raised by the said dealer relates to the
cancellation of a high-speed diesel license by the State, which
according to the said dealer, is because of the approach having made
by the lessor to the Government.
4. Since the Company has suffered an order for vacation, it is
otherwise bound to vacate. We do not intend to go deep into the said
aspect of the cancellation order issued by the State, more
particularly, when the Company volunteers to vacate the said
demised premises on or before 31st March, 2026. We direct the
Company to file an undertaking by Friday (13th February, 2026) in
this regard. We are also not unmindful of the fact that the said
demised premises is situated in a prime location in Sambalpur town
and the sum of Rs.20,000/- per month by way of compensation is
abysmally low and too meager in commensurate with the market
realities.
5. There is no fetter on the part of the Court to apply robust
common sense, common knowledge of human affairs, events gained
by the judicial experience and judicially noticeable facts over and
above the material available on record. It is further fortified in the
words of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court rendering the
judgment in Olga Tellis and others v. Bombay Municipal
Corporation and others, reported in (1985) 3 SCC 545 in the
following:
"Common sense, which is a cluster of life's
experiences, is often more dependable than the rival
facts presented by warring litigants".
6. Though the petitioner has disclosed certain documents
throwing light on the present market rental value of the properties in
the nearby vicinity but those relates to fully-developed property,
where the constructions have been made. Though the above
mentioned documents may not be guiding factor in stricto sensu but
taking clue from the observation of the Constitution Bench in Olga
Tellis (supra), there is no absolute inhibition on the part of the Judge
to apply a robust common sense and the experiences gained in
judicial dispensation to award adequate compensation for an
unauthorized and wrongful occupation of the demised premises for a
pretty long time.
7. We, therefore, direct the Company to pay a sum of
Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten Lakhs only) as compensation, over and above,
the amount of occupational charges paid to the petitioners in terms
of the order passed by this Court.
8. It goes without saying that while filing the undertaking the
Company shall also indicate that the said amount shall be paid on or
before 31st March, 2026.
9. List this matter on 16th February, 2026 to take into
consideration the said undertaking to be filed by Friday.
(Harish Tandon)
Chief Justice
(M.S. Raman)
Judge
Sisira
Signed by: SISIRA KUMAR BEHERA
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 11-Feb-2026 19:44:33
