Lessee Is True Owner Of Structure That He Builds Over Leased Land, Lessor Cannot Claim Ownership: Orissa High Court

The Orissa High Court has reiterated that a lessee is the true owner of a structure that he builds over a leased land, and therefore, the ownership over the same cannot be claimed by the lessor who is undoubtedly owner of the leased land.

While adjudicating a dispute relating to a mobile tower built over a leased land, Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad ingeminated the following settled principle of law –

“It has been the long settled position of law that lessor continues to be the owner of the plot, whereas lessee becomes the owner of the structure which he has built under the lease in question by virtue of doctrine of dual ownership.”

The case emanated from a lease deed dated May 05, 2014 whereby the petitioner, being the owner, leased out the concerned land to the lessee (OP No.5 herein). The lessee is said to have constructed a mobile tower over the land, which subsequently became dysfunctional and was ordered by the Collector on July 01, 2015 to be demolished. Challenging the order of the Collector, the petitioner approached the High Court.

Advocate Bini Mishra appearing for the petitioner argued that the impugned order had negative effect on the interest of the petitioner, which is legally unsustainable. However, the opposite parties, including the lessee, opposed the petition justifying the impugned order.

After hearing the parties, the Court questioned the locus standi of the petitioner to bring this writ challenging the dismantling order. In the words of Justice Shripad –

“By virtue of impugned order, the vinculum juris created by the subject lease deed, is not disrupted and therefore, the lessor continues to be the lessor and so does the lessee. Case of the Petitioner is largely one of damnum sine injuria and therefore, without a legal injury, legal remedy cannot be sought.”

In view of the Court, the true aggrieved party is OP No.5 (the lessee) who had built the tower over the land of the petitioner. The Judge reiterated the well-established doctrine of property law, i.e. “dual ownership” which signifies that the lessor is the owner of a leased land but the lessee is the owner of any structure built over the same with the permission of the lessor. The following para from Mulla's Transfer of Property was referred to –

“The lessee is the owner of the building put up by him on the land leased. It is by now well settled that the maxim, what is annexed with the soil goes with the soil, has not been accepted as absolute rule of law of this country. A person who bona fide puts up constructions on land belonging to others with their permission would not be a trespasser, nor would the buildings so constructed vest in the owner of the land.”

The above position of law has been further fortified by the decisions of the High Courts of Bombay and Madras in Lakshmipat v. Larsen & Toubro (1949) and Mohammed Abdul Kadar v. The District Collector of Kanyakumari (1971) respectively.

The Court took note of the fact that a suit is pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Commercial Court, Kendrapara which seeks to recover the outstanding rents of OP No.5 payable to the petitioner. Accordingly, a direction was issued to the Civil Judge (Senior Division) to adjudicate and dispose of the suit within one year.

Case Title: Nirmala Sahu v. Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) & Ors.

Case No: W.P.(C) No. 1734 of 2016

Date of Judgment: August 19, 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s.U.R. Jena, (Ms.) Bini Mishra & B.K. Das, Advocates

Counsel for the Opposite Parties: Mr. J.K. Ray, Addl. Standing Counsel [O.P. No.2], Mr. M.K. Mishra, Sr. Advocate with M/s T. Mishra & P.K. Das, Advocates [O.P. No.3], M/s S.N. Biswal, G. Panda & B. Rout, Advocates [O.P. Nos.6 & 7]

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 106

Click Here To Read/Download Order