Resident’s Association, Rourkela … v. ….. Opposite Parties Mr. S.S. Pradhan, AGA (O.Ps.1 to 5) Mr. D.K. Mohapatra, Advocate
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.6177 of 2005 Resident’s Association, Rourkela ….. Petitioner Mr. G.M. Rath, Advocate State of Odisha & Ors. Vs. ….. Opposite Parties Mr. S.S. Pradhan, AGA (O.Ps.1 to 5) Mr. D.K. Mohapatra, Advocate (O.P.6) Order No. 11 CORAM: DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI MR. JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
Decision
ORDER 23.04.2024 W.P.(C) Nos.6177 of 2005, 6824 of 2017, 6947 of 2017, 7382 of 2017, 7385 of 2017, 7388 of 2017, 7390 of 2017, 7392 of 2017, 7553 of 2017, 7555 of 2017, 7557 of 2017, 7559 of 2017, 7560 of 2017, 7562 of 2017, 7563 of 2017, 7565 of 2017 & 7566 of 2017 This matter is taken up by hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. G.M. Rath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.6177 of 2005; Mr. S.S. Pradhan, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties No.1 to 5; Mr. D.K. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for opposite party-Rourkela Development Authority and Mr. B.P. Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in other above noted writ petitions. 3. The petitioner has filed W.P.(C) No.6177 of 2005 seeking to quash the orders under Annexures-1 & 2 passed by opposite parties no.3 to 5 and further to issue direction to opposite parties no.1 to 5 to waive the premium amount and execute requisite lease deed in its favour within a stipulated period. Page 1 of 5 4. Mr. G.M. Rath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.6177 of 2005 contended that the petitioner is a resident’s association registered under the Society Registration Act, 1860 and on being represented by it’s Secretary it made a representation on 13.06.1989 to the Collector, Sundargarh for allotment of land/plot in Rourkela (C.T.) Municipality for construction of a community centre in the Civil township, (7 & 8) Rourkela-4. The grievance of the petitioner-association is that the population of Civil Township (7&8) Rourkela-4 is rising day by day and though by increasing the population a new township has been established, no civil amenities, like community centre, library, club and also no space has been provided for celebration of social functions, like, meetings, conferences, marriage and sacred thread ceremonies etc. of the residents. Therefore, opposite party no.4-Collector, Sundargarh, after considering the genuine grievance/need of the residents, intimated the petitioner’s Secretary through opposite party no.5, vide its letter dated 17.06.1991, that a piece of land measuring Ac.1.000 decimals in the area of Civil Township, (7&8) Rourkela-4 is being considered to be temporarily provided to the resident’s association/petitioner for construction of a Kalyana Mandap-Community Centre and further requested the petitioner’s Secretary to furnish a resolution duly signed by the members of the petitioner’s association to agree with certain conditions like the land will always remain in the book of the Government and necessary permission for construction and no deviation of the approved plan should be approved with certain other condition. But, nowhere it has been mentioned that the petitioner- association is liable to pay premium for the allotment of land. After fulfillment of the aforesaid formalities by the petitioner-association, Additional District Magistrate, Rourkela-opposite party no.5 issued a letter on 29.08.1992 to the Secretary of the petitioner-association Page 2 of 5 intimating that lease of an area measuring Ac.0.900 decimals pertaining to Plot No.29/1(P), Gharabari-1 Ac. 0.615 decimals and Plot No.172/570/1(P), Gharabari-1, Area Ac.0.285 decimals of Khata No.111 has been sanctioned in favour of the petitioner for construction of Kalyana Mandap/Community Centre and for the said purpose to deposit premium amounting to Rs.5,85,000/- and an annual rent of Rs.5850/- by 28.01.1992. Thereafter, the petitioner- association ventilated its grievance before the Hon’ble Chief Minister on 17.11.1992 stating therein to remit the aforesaid premium/rent as the land in question is to be utilized for public purpose, but not for any personal use. In turn, the Government vide letter dated 08.12.1992 intimated the petitioner-association to move before opposite party no.3-Revenue Divisional Commissioner, (N.D.), Sambalpur, as he is the Chairman of land allotment committee. Thereby, the petitioner-association made a representation under Annexure-6 to opposite party no.3 through opposite party no.5 to lease out the land in question with free of premium. In response to same, opposite party no.3 recommended the said representation to the Government in Revenue Department for sanction of land with free of premium. Learned counsel for the petitioner files the said recommendation of opposite party no.3 before this Court by way of memo after serving a copy thereof on the learned counsel for the other parties. It is contended that even though recommendation has been made on 02.03.1993, till date no decision has been taken by the Government. Therefore, it is contended that direction may be issued to the Government to take a decision on the recommendation made by opposite party no.3 as expeditiously as possible. 5. Mr. S.S. Pradhan, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties No.1 to 5 contended that if the recommendation is pending before the Government, let direction Page 3 of 5 be issued to the Government to dispose of the said recommendation, if it has not been disposed of in the meantime. 6. Mr. D.K. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for opposite party-Rourkela Development Authority contended that Rourkela Development Authority has already taken over the land in question and constructed 25 shop rooms over it. After auction, it has received money from the auction purchasers, but it has not delivered the possession in view of interim order passed by this Court. 7. Mr. B.P. Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in other connected writ petitions contended that even if Rourkela Development Authority put the shop rooms in auction in 2017, without issuing any notice to the petitioners therein, they have been granted rent to some of the shop room owners but the same has not been materialized because of interim order passed by this Court. Therefore, they have filed separate writ petitions. 8. Considering the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, this Court finds that the Collector allotted the land in question in favour of the petitioner- association for construction of a community centre and also permitted to have a construction to be raised at the cost paid by the petitioner. As such, the petitioner-association paid the rent for such construction. But, the dispute started when Rourkela Development Authority put the shop rooms into auction. Therefore, the petitioner approached this Court and this Court, after considering the grievance, vide order dated 26.05.2005 granted status quo in respect of the property in question. As such, neither the Rourkela Development Authority nor any other authority has taken over possession of the shop rooms. In any case, if the grievance of the petitioner-association has already been considered and opposite party no.3-Revenue Divisional Commissioner (N.D.), Sambalpur has made Page 4 of 5 recommendation to the Government and no decision has been taken, this Court, without entering into controversies, disposes of these writ petitions with a direction to the State authorities to consider and take a decision on the recommendation made by opposite party no.3 as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of communication/production of this order, if the same has not been disposed of in the meantime, and communicate the result thereof to the petitioner. Needless to say, if the decision of Revenue Divisional Commissioner (N.D), Sambalpur is accepted and it has been settled in favour of the petitioner, Rourkela Development authority shall take steps for refund of the auction amount received from the auction purchasers along with interest and the petitioners in other connected writ petitions have no right to claim any benefit over the so-called shop rooms constructed. (DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE Alok (G. SATAPATHY) JUDGE Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ALOK RANJAN SETHY Designation: A.R-cum-Sr. Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 24-Apr-2024 16:39:51 Page 5 of 5