Arun Kumar Panda v. Unioin Of India And Others Opposite Parties.

Arindam Sinha, J.:— Mr. Tripathy, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client is owner of the land. Lease of the land was given to one Gollak Behera for operating retail outlet (RO) and said person obtained licence from Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL). The oil company terminated the licence by letter dated 14 June, 2007. Subsequent thereto, the oil company appointed M/s. D.R. Patra and Sons to operate the RO. His client in tandem also granted lease to M/s. D.R. Patra and Sons. However, M/s. D.R. Patra and Sons abandoned the site. His client did not get usufructs of his property. As a result his client had approached the oil company to itself take lease of the land. The oil company refused to do so. When this writ petition was filed and notice issued upon the oil company, it removed its effects on 20 April, 2017. By the removal first prayer of his client has been met. There remains the relief of compensation, to be adjudicated and directed.

2. Mr. Patnaik, learned advocate appears on behalf of the oil company and submits, there is no privity of contract between petitioner and his client. There cannot arise, therefore, the question of compensation.

3. Court finds from said termination letter dated 14 June, 2007 that the oil company had fixed 22 June, 2007 for its officers to visit the RO for physically taking over the site and, inter alia, undertaking inventory of products lying there including underground tanks and stock items etc. Further disclosures in the writ petition make it clear that the oil company had been in control of the property. When the second person had abandoned the dealership and after many attempts of petitioner to obtain usufructs of land from the oil company, the oil company by letter dated 12 October, 2015 said that they would remove their properties latest by 30 November, 2015. It is clear that at least from 30 November, 2015 till 20 April, 2017 the oil company was wrongfully in possession of the property.

4. Adjournment is granted for the oil company to call petitioner and negotiate terms of a settlement on his claim for compensation. Court expects that parties will report settlement by adjourned date, so that adjudication on the question of compensation is not necessary.

5. List on 1 February, 2022.