Dr. Nurul Amin And Another vs State Of Odisha And Others

B.P. Routray, J

Heard Mr. G. Mukherji, learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner, Mr. G. Tripathy, learned Additional Government Advocate for State-Opposite Party No.1, Ms. N. Pattnaik, learned Advocate on behalf of Mr. K.K. Mukhi, learned Advocate for Opposite Parties 2 & 3 and Mr. S. Mishra, learned Advocate for the proposed intervenor, i.e. one of the brothers of Petitioner No.1.

Petitioner No.1 is the owner of the case property, i.e. House No.HIG-4, Drawing No.CA/283/R-1, Plot No.241(P) measuring area 2700 sq. ft. in Khata No.619 of mouza - Chandrasekharpur, more fully described in Annexure-2.

He filed present writ petition along with Petitioner No.2, who is his niece, i.e. daughter of his sister, praying for quashing of impugned order dated 24th November 2025, whereby the alleged prayer of Petitioner No.1 for transfer of the property by way of gift has been rejected by Opposite Party No.2.

The Petitioner No.1 had earlier approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.28720 of 2025 and the same was disposed of on 13.10.2025, by a Coordinate Bench with a direction to present Opposite Party No.2 to consider the representation of Petitioner and to dispose of the same in accordance with law. Pursuant to said direction of this Court dated 13.10.2025, Petitioner No.1 appeared before the Secretary of Odisha State Housing Board (Opposite Party No.2) and upon examination of him, Opposite Party No.2 denied to record his consent for the alleged gift. Said order dated 24th November 2025 is the subject matter of challenge in present writ petition.

Considering the contentions of the Petitioners, this Court referred Petitioner No.1 for examination through a competent Medical Board to be constituted by the Director of Capital Hospital, Bhubaneswar. Accordingly, Petitioner No.1 was examined by the Medical Board at Capital Hospital, Bhubaneswar. As per the report of Medical Board, it is opined that Petitioner No.1 is of sound mental health with exhibits of symptoms of old brain stroke with features of atypical Parkinsonism and mild dementia. For better reference, the report dated 17.04.2026 is re-produced below:-

"On dt.08.04.2026 at 11.00 AM the Petitioner Dr. Nurul Amin has appeared before the Special Medical Board at Capital Hospital, Bhubaneswar. He was accompanied and identified by following persons.

Afsana Sahid (Niece of the Petitioner)

Susanta Kumar Dhar (Caretaker of the Petitioner)

He was examined by team of experts including Psychiatrist, Neurophyscian and Medicine Specialist. Required preliminary examination was conducted and necessary investigation was advised by the Medical Board to know the Petitioner's condition. After completion of investigation the Medical Board again evaluated the Petitioner's present Mental State with Medical investigation reports on dt.17.04.2026 and the opinion of the Medical Board are as follows:

Dr. Nurul Amin the Petitioner is found to be sound mental health but exhibits symptoms of old brain stroke with features of Atypical Parkinsonism and mild Dementia.

He is not fully capable of basic self care. He is capable of taking simple decisions but lacks full capacity to manage complex financial or legal situations or matters independently.

His condition is progressive in nature and periodic

reassessment is required."

Upon further consideration of the prayer of the Petitioners, this Court has also called for the detail examination report of the Petitioner No.1 to arrive such opinion by the Medical Board. Consequent to the direction of this Court, a copy of the Medical Examination Report along with questionnaire put to Petitioner No.1 is produced by Mr. G.

G. Tripathy, learned A.G.A. in Court. It is seen from said Medical Examination Report that, different questions were asked to determine the mental state of Petitioner No.1 and based on the response of Petitioner No.1 thereof, he secured total score 20 out of 30 as evaluated by the Medical Board. Therefore, taking note of such Medical Examination of Petitioner No.1 and the opinion of the Medical Board, as stated above, it is not convinced why Petitioner No.1 remained silent before the Secretary, Odisha Housing Board (Opposite Party No.2) while questioned regarding gifting of the property in favour of Petitioner No.2.

The specific observation of Opposite Party No.2 in the impugned order is to the effect that Petitioner No.1 did not give any opinion/consent and also was not able to speak anything for such transfer of property by way of gift. The relevant observations in the impugned order under Annexure-5 are re-produced below:

"During the course of personal hearing, the undersigned asked the petitioner, Dr. Nurul Amin who is the allottee of House No.HIG-4 (7 Acres), Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar to give his opinion on the matter of transfer of the House No.HIG-4, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar by way of Gift to Afsana Sahid. Inspite of giving enough time and opportunity to the petitioner Dr. Narul Amin, he did not give any opinion/consent and also not able to speak any thing for such transfer of property by way of Gift. Further opportunity was also given for recording his statement. He only expressed that "we have 05 brothers. I am the 3rd brother of the family. My eider brother is in USA. Recently he expires. Now we are 03 brothers". The recorded statement forms a part of the case record.

It is also mentioned that, earlier as called for, the petitioner also appeared before the Secretary on 25.09.2025. On that day also, the O.P.No.2 i.e Secretary put repeated questions as to whom he is going to transfer the case house by way of Gift. But he did not speak anything regarding transfer of the house.

In this matter, the O.P. No.4 Afsana Sahid appeared before the Secretary, OSHB i.e. O.P.No.2 on dtd. 12.11.2025 and she stated that, "this is Afsana Sahid niece of Dr. Nurul Amin beg to state that I am a genuine person and not pressuring anyone specially Dr. Nurul Amin. I have taken care of Dr. Nurul Amin since last 05 years and his misses Dr. Puspa Amin was also taken care by me. He is staying at his own property with his own wife, no one is pressurized him. He is taken care by physically and monetary". The recorded statement forms a part of the case record.

Hence, Dr Nurul Amin (petitioner) in course of personal hearing on 12.11.2025 in presence of A.O (Urban), Law Officer, concerned Dealing Asst. Sri S.N. Mohanty and Afsana Sahid has not opined/consented/able to speak expressing his intention to transfer the house by way of Gift in favour of Afsana Sahid."

The medical report and the opinion of the Medical Board, as referred above, do not suggest the state of mind of Petitioner No.1 so feeble for not to answer such relevant questions of Opposite Party No.2 during his examination. In such context, keeping in view the state of mind of Petitioner No.1 as per the Medical Board vis-à-vis the observation made by Opposite Party No.2 in the impugned order under Annexure-5, it is felt appropriate to send the matter back to Opposite Party No.2 for re-examination of Petitioner No.1 with regard to his intention to gift.

Accordingly, the impugned order under Annexure-5 is set aside and Opposite Party No.2 is directed to reconsider the prayer of Petitioner No.1 with regard to gifting of the property in question upon further examination of Petitioner No.1, on any working day between 10.30 A.M. to 11.30 A.M. on or before 29th May 2026, and to pass necessary order accordingly without delay.

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of.