[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Soubhagya Kumar Nayak vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Parties on 24 February, 2026
Author: V. Narasingh
Bench: V. Narasingh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 33509 of 2025
Soubhagya Kumar Nayak .... Petitioner
Mr. P.K. Satapathy, Advocate
-versus-
1. State of Odisha .... Opposite Parties
represented through its
Commissioner-cum-
Chairman Panchayat Raj &
Water Supply Department,
Bhubaneswar
2. Collector, Sambalpur
3. Sub-Collector, Kuchinda,
Sambalpur
4. BDO, Bamra block,
Sambalpur
5. Keshibahal Gram
Panchayat, represented
through its Sarpanch,
Sambalpur
6. Shibasankar SHG,
Sambalpur
Mr. P.K. Ray, AGA
CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
ORDER
24.02.2026
Order No.
02. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and
learned counsel for the State.
2. Assailing the illegality of the auction notice
dated 07.06.2025 vide Annexure-1 issued by the
Sarpanch, Kesaibahal G.P., the present writ petition
has been filed.
3. The submission of the learned counsel for the
Petitioner that the issuance of such notice is in patent
violation of the provisions as contained under Rule
48(5) of the Odisha Grama Panchayat Rules, 2014
(hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 2014").
4. At this juncture, it is apt to note that notice of
this application was issued on 13.01.2026 and
Registry has indicated that the AD has been received
after due service of notice on Opposite Party Nos.5 &
6.
There is no appearance on behalf of Opposite
Party Nos.5 & 6, when the matter is called.
5. It is the submission of the learned counsel for
the Petitioner that on a bare perusal of the auction
notice at Annexure-1, it can be seen that violation of
prescriptions of Rule 48(7) of the Rules, 2014, is tell-
tale.
6. The first objection which is taken is that,
contrary to the stipulation, the auction notice has
been issued by the Sarpanch, whereas the rule
enjoins that it should be by the BDO, and the further
procedure laid down in Rule 48(5) of the Rules, 2014
has also been violated.
7. Since the issue falls within a narrow compass,
it is apposite to refer to Rule 48(5) as well as Rule
48(7) of the Rules, 2014, which are extracted
hereunder for convenience of reference:--
"48. (1) to (4)xxx
(5) (a) The Sub-Collector shall send a list of
properties, to be leased out by public auction
indicating the period of lease and upset price,
to the respective Block Development Officer
who shall thereupon fix the dates for auction
of all or any of such properties and issue
notices for such auction.
(b) He may authorize any of his junior officers
to conduct auction for sale of properties whose
upset price is rupees five thousand or less.
(c) The notice for auction shall be issued
before fifteen clear days of the date fixed for
auction and shall be published in the notice
board of the Panchayat, Panchayat Samiti,
Sub-Divisional Office and at such other place
or places as the Block Development Officer or
his Junior Officer, as the case may be, deem
necessary.
(6)xxx
(7) (a) No person shall be allowed to bid
unless and until he deposits the security
money and produces a certificate from the
concerned Grama Panchayat to the effect that
he has cleared all dues accruing to the Grama
Panchayat in respect of any previous lease
taken by him.
(b) The security deposit shall be ten per cent
of the upset price fixed by the Sub-Collector.
The security money shall be paid to the Officer
conducting the auction sale who shall record
the details in sale records."
8. On perusal of the auction notice which is
extracted hereunder, it is seen that the same is
conspicuous by the absence of details of the
properties to be auctioned, and the same having
been issued by the Sarpanch militates against the
procedure prescribed under Rule 48(5)(a) of the
Rules, 2014. And, resting his submission on the
infraction of the said Rules, 2014, learned counsel for
the Petitioner seeks quashing of the auction notice.
9. Learned counsel for the State, on the other
hand, opposes such prayer and relying on the counter
affidavit filed on behalf of Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 4,
submits that the lease deed has, in fact, been
executed with Opposite Party No. 6 on 07.07.2025.
In this context, he refers to Rule 47(2) of the Rules,
2014 and submits that, since the lease deed has been
executed in terms of Rule 47(2) of the Rules, 2014,
the alleged infraction of Rule 48 of the Rules, 2014,
as alleged, is of no significance.
10. At the first blush, such submission appears to
be attractive. If the provisions as contained in Rule
47 of the Rules, 2014 are juxtaposed with one under
Rule 48 of Rules, 2014, the reasonable conclusion
that can be drawn is that Rule 47 of the Rules, 2014
does not envisage resorting to auction whereas the
tenor of the counter affidavit of the Opposite Party
Nos.1 to 4 is that there is no irregularity in the
auction and in this context reference can be made to
paragraphs-11 & 12 of the counter affidavit.
Paragraph-12 of the counter affidavit is in response
to the paragraph-6 of the writ petition wherein
violation of Rule 48(5) of the Rules, 2014 has been
specifically pleaded.
"12. That the averments made in Para-6 of the
writ petition are not correct and hereby denied.
containing complete details including
description, area, location, and upset price (as
approved by the Sub-Collector, Kuchinda) was
circulated to all Gram Panchayats by the Office
of the BDO after fixation of the upset price. The
same form no. 13 was formed part of the
auction notice affixed on the notice board of
the Gram Panchayat. Therefore, the question of
illegality on the ground of non-disclosure of
upset price does not arise"
Infraction of Rule 48(5) of the Rules, 2014 has
remain unanswered.
11. Hence, in the light of the submissions made
and on the basis of materials on record, this Court is
persuaded to hold that there is infraction of Rule 48
of the Rules, 2014 and the defence as being
advanced that the agreement of lease has been
entered into by exercising Rule 47(2) of the Rules,
2014 is contrary to the stand of the State in the
counter affidavit as extracted hereinabove.
12. Accordingly, this Court is persuaded to hold
that there has been illegality in the issuance of the
auction notice dated 07.06.2025 and the execution of
the lease deed with Opposite Party No. 6. Hence, the
auction notice as well as lease in respect of the
property is set aside.
13. Liberty is granted to the State to settle the
Kata of village Niktimal afresh by following the
modalities as envisaged under the Rules, 2014.
14. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed
of.
15. In view of disposal of writ petition, pending
I.As., if any, also stand disposed of.
(V. Narasingh)
Ayesha Judge
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
