ORISSA OLYMPIC ASSOCIATION TH. GENERAL SECRETARY versus STATE OF ORISSA & ANR.

Citation: [2017] 6 S.C.R. 813 · Decided: 03-04-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Directions issued

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 6 S.C.R. 813 
ORISSA OLYMPIC ASSOCIATION TH. GENERAL SECRETARY 
A 
v. 
STATE OF ORISSA & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 6450of2016) 
APRIL 03, 2017 
[DIPAK MISRA AND PRAFFULA C. PANT, JJ.] 
Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972: 
Encroachment on Government land - Appellant-association 
was granted lease of land for construction of stadium - Dispute 
arose regarding a part of a plot on which 23 shops and a part of 
Kalyan mandap was built by the appellant-association - State 
contended that the said portion of land was outside the limit of the 
leased out area to the appellant-association - Appellant contended 
that the said part was also granted under lease and erroneously 
excluded by the State records - Held: A committee of judicial officers 
was constituted to measure the lease hold area and submit report 
whether the 23 shops and Kalyan mandap were within the said lease 
hold land - On perusal of report of the Committee and other 
materials on record, two aspects were clear (i) the appellant-
association encroached upon the property of the State Government 
and built 23 shops and, as the report of the Committee would reflect, 
Kalyan mandap stands partly on the government land; (ii) the 
property that stands on the government land has to go back to the 
government - Further, the Ka(van Mandap should vest in the State 
Government and shall be managed by the District Collector. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
Audit of income derived from suit land -Appellant-association 
was granted lease of land for construction of stadium - Dispute 
arose regarding part of a plot on which 23 shops and a part of 
Kalyan mandap was built by the appellant-association, ·which was 
also claimed by the State Government - Whether the income received 
from the said land were audited and the amount derived properly G 
accounted by the appellant-association - Held: The association 
has raised construction by encroaching upon the Government land 
- There is a lot of gap between the figure arrived at by the 
Accountant General on the basis of the market rent and the figure 
813 
H 
814 
A 
B 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 6 S.C.R .. 
arrived at by the expert engaged by the appellant-association -
State has shown the revenue generated after it was handed over to 
it which indubitably shows that the 23 shops were given on luwer 
rent and similarly Kalyan mandap h.ad been let out at a very low 
price or there had been collusion to show lower receipt though 
actually there was high c.ollection on rents - It has to be borne in 
mind that the revenue has been generated by constructing on the 
government land and profits has been earned from the same - That 
warrants scrutiny and investigation -
Central Bureau of 
-
Investigation directed tu investigate into the matter keeping in view 
the report of the Accountant General and other aspects. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Conflict of Interest - Appellant-association was granted lease 
of land for construction of stadium - Dispute arose regarding·a 
part of a plot on which 23 shops and a part of Kalyan mandap was 
built by the appellant-association, which was also claimed by the 
State Government - Appellant-association executed contract with 
Mis. 'I' for purpose of holding marriages and sun of associations 
general secretary was partner in Mis. 'I' - Further. there was 
allegation that sun and sun-in-law were also partners - In such a 
situation conflict of interest arises - Held: The suit land whereon 
23 shops were constructed and rented out, belongs to the State 
Government and a part of Kalyan Mandap is also built on the 
Government land - In the instant case, the son of the Secretary of 
the association is a partner in the jihn that had been given contract 
- The son might have been inducted as a partner at a later stage 
but the fact remains that the father was the Secretm:v of the 
association - The arrangement entered into by the association with 
A1/s. 'I' was absolutely illegal and there was conflict of interest since 
the Secreta1y s son and son-in-law were inducted as partners in the 
concerned firm; also there was revenue loss as the audit re1jort of 
the Accountant General is appreciated; the Secretary of the 
association could nut have been instrumental in unauthorised 
construction on the government land and in generating revenue 
therefrom; furthe1; there was serious concern about the nature of 
revenue generation utilisation and the fuss sustained - Therefore. 
the agreement between the associatio

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.