STATE OF ODISHA & ORS. versus BICHITRANANDA DAS

Citation: [2019] 15 S.C.R. 214 · Decided: 18-12-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, HRISHIKESH ROY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
214
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 15 S.C.R.
STATE OF ODISHA & ORS.
v.
BICHITRANANDA DAS
(Civil Appeal No. 9521 of 2019)
DECEMBER 18, 2019
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Lease:
Lease-hold property  –  Conversion to free-hold property
under a policy  – Conversion charges  – Computation of  – Relevant
date  –  Whether would be the date when the applicant applied for
conversion or the date when the final decision was taken  –  Held:
Submission of an application does not confer a vested right of
permission  –  The application for conversion must necessarily be
consistent with and compliant to the governing provisions of the
conversion policy  –  Without affecting the compliance, applicant
did not have right to claim conversion of the land to free-hold  –
High Court was wrong in directing that rate for computation of
conversion charges would be that which was prevalent on the date
when application was made.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.  The submission of an application does not confer
vested right for permission. The applicant must comply with the
terms of the policy. One of the terms in the policy in question
was that the applicant should not have encroached on government
land. An applicant who seeks the benefit of the policy must comply
with its terms. In the present case, the policy which was formulated
by the State Government specifically contained a stipulation to
the effect that a lessee, who had encroached upon or
unauthorisedly occupied Government land anywhere within
Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation limits would not be eligible
to be covered by the scheme unless the unauthorised occupation
is vacated.  [Para 17][220-F-G]
Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority v.
Prestige Estates Project Ltd. (2019) SCC OnLine SC
 [2019] 15 S.C.R. 214
214
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
215
931; State of Tamil Nadu v. Hind Stone (1981) 2 SCC
205 : [1981] 2 SCR 742; Howrah Municipal
Corporation v. Ganges Rope Co Ltd. (2004) 1 SCC 663
: [2003] 6  Suppl. SCR 1212 – relied on.
2.  There was no justification for the High Court to direct
that the rate for the computation of conversion charges should
be that which was applicable on the submission of an application.
The application for conversion from leasehold to freehold must
necessarily be consistent with and compliant to the governing
provisions of the policy which has been framed by the State
Government. Unless compliance is effected, there is no right to
claim conversion of the land to freehold. The respondent would
necessarily have to pay the conversion charges on the date when
a final decision was taken after due verification that there was no
encroachment and after scrutinizing the declaration which was
filed by the respondent. [Para 19][221-F-H; 222-A]
3. A period of nearly twelve years has elapsed in the
meantime. The respondent moved the writ proceedings before
the High court only in 2015. If the grievance of the respondent
was that the State had not taken any action on his representations,
he ought to have moved the writ proceedings at an earlier point
of time seeking a decision on his application. Having himself
waited until 2015 to seek a declaration from the High Court, the
respondent cannot claim that the conversion charges should be
fixed as on the date of the application. [Para 20][222-B]
Case Law Reference
(2019) SCC OnLine SC 931
relied on
Para 15
[1981] 2 SCR 742
relied on
Para 17
[2003] 6  Suppl. SCR 1212
relied on
Para 17
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9521
of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.01.2018 of the High Court
of  Orissa, Cuttack in W.P. (C) No. 8159 of 2015.
V. Giri, Sr. Adv., Suvendu Suvasis Dash, Ms. Swati Vaibhav, Nabab
Singh, Advs. for the Appellants.
STATE OF ODISHA & ORS. v. BICHITRANANDA DAS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
216
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 15 S.C.R.
Santosh Raut, Vishwa Pal Singh, Rajendra Prasad, Ms. Pallavi,
Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. This appeal arises from a judgment of a Division Bench of the
High Court of Orissa dated 12 January 2018.
4. On 30 September 1981, a lease of a plot bearing No F/37
admeasuring 75 feet  by 100 feet described as Drawing No BS-136 (R)
Mouza-Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar, was granted to the respondent by the
State Government in the General Administration Department1 for a period
of ninety years under the Government Grants Act 1895. On 18 July
2003, th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.