January to March 2013 for PDF.pmd - Orissa High Court

CourtNews21B. P. I. L. – Transfer of Barmunda Bus Stand land in favour of O.Ps 5 & 6 – Action of the StateGovernment is in utter disregard of the Constitutional and statutory provisions – Petitioner being a localresident challenged the action – Locus standi – Petitioner has taken genuine steps to protect the propertyfrom being misutilised and it cannot be said that it is a private interest litigation – Held, since the petitionerhas espoused the cause of the public at large, the writ petition at his instance is maintainable.C. MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 – S.96.Construction of Barmunda Bus Terminal – A Bus stand can only be notified by the RTA havingjurisdiction over the area – If any authority other than the RTA has taken the decision selecting the placein which the Bus stand will operate, the same shall be treated as null and void in the eye of law – SinceO.P. Nos.1,2,3 entered into a contract with O.P.6 for construction of Barmunda Bus terminal there isstatutory violation of the above provision – Held, petitioner can challenge the validity of the impugnedagreement Dt.16.03.2011 entered in to by O.P.1, 2 & 3 with O.P. 6.D. TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882 – S.54.“Profit a prendre” - Meaning of – It is a profit or benefit arising out of the land regarded as“immovable property” within the meaning of Section 3(26) of the General Clauses Act and Section 2(6) ofthe Registration Act.In this case OSRTC executed an unregistered agreement creating permanent lease with an areaof Ac.14.430 decimals in favour of O.P.5 & 6 for construction of modern Bus Terminus over 60% andcommercial complex over 40% of the above land which is under challenge.The right to construct modern Bus terminus and commercial complex and to appropriate profit beinga “Profit a Prendre” i.e. profit or benefit arising out of the above land it has to be regarded as immovableproperty and its sale has to be by means of a registered instrument as its value is much more thanRs.100/- - Held, the impugned transaction being under an unregistered instrument it has not conferred titleor interest in favour of OP. 5 & 6.E. TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882 – Ss. 105 & 107.Distinction between “lease” and “License” – A lease cannot be converted into a license merely bycalling it as license but it will have to be determined from the recitals of the document itself whether thenature of transaction entered into between the parties, the interest over the property has been given ormerely a right of user has been given to the adversary.In this case an interest over the land in question has been conferred upon O.P.5 & 6 by way ofan agreement to enjoy the exclusive possession of the property and to derive profit out of it – Held, thistype of transaction cannot be said to have created a mere license – O.P. 5 & 6 are lessees and notlicenses.(V. Gopala Gowda, CJ & S. K. Mishra, J.)DASRATHI RANA & ANR.-V- STATECRLREV. NO. 474 OF 2012 (Dt.04.01.2013)S.C. & S.T. (P. A.) ACT, 1989 – 3 (1) (i) (ii) (x)Quashing of order taking cognizance U/s.3 (i) (i) (x) of the S.C. & S.T. (P.A.) Act, 1989 and U/ss.341, 294, 323 506, 34 I.P.C.In this case the informant, a member of Schedule Caste being engaged as a Tahali (messenger)by the villagers went to the house of the petitioner asking them to come to the village meeting and togive festival chanda and it is alleged that the petitioner No.1 abused him in obscene language saying himas “Pana”, his Caste name and petitioner No.2 instigated petitioner No.1 to assault and petitioner No.1dealt two slaps to the informant threatending him to kill.