The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.12204 of 2022 (In the matter of an application under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India) Pravat Kumar Mohapatra -versus- Principal Secretary Housing and Urban Development Department, Odisha, Government Bhubaneswar and others of …. …. Petitioner Opposite Parties Appeared in this case:- For Petitioner For Opposite Parties : : Appeared in this case:- CORAM: JUSTICE A.C. BEHERA
Legal Reasoning
Mr. S.S. Mohapatra, Advocate Mr. D. Mohapatra, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. P.K. Singh Deo, Advocate for O.P. Nos.2 and 3 Mr. D.K. Sahoo, Learned Additional Government Advocate for O.P. No.1 JUDGMENT Date of hearing : 04.03.2025 / date of judgment : 03.04.2025 A.C. Behera, J. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing Letter No.557 dated 19.01.2021(Annexure-7) issued by the Opposite Party No.3, Secretary, Cuttack Development Authority. 2. The case of the petitioner is that, the petitioner was allotted with a Group-D category plot measuring 1500 sq.ft.(50 x 30) at Sector-10 under the Bidanasi Project Area as per order dated 26.05.2003 of the Opposite Parties on deposit of the required amount. Then, on 15.03.2018, the Opposite Party No.3 issued a notice vide Annexure-3 to the petitioner directing him to deposit Rs.2,48,115/-(rupees two lakhs forty-eight thousand one hundred fifteen) stating that, he(petitioner) is in possession of extra 87.5 sq.ft. land to the East side of his allotted Group-D category plot. In response to the said letter dated 15.03.2018(Annexure-3), the petitioner expressed his willingness to purchase the said extra 87.5 sq.ft. land depositing the prevailing benchmark value thereof, instead of the above demanded money, because, the above demanded money is double of the bench mark value of that 87.5 sq.ft excess land, but, the Opposite Parties remained silent without making any correspondence with the petitioner. Then, two years thereafter, the Opposite Party No.3 issued a letter on dated 18.01.2020 to the petitioner to deposit Rs.1,36,553/- (rupees one lakh thirty-six thousand five hundred fifty-three) for that excess 87.5 sq.ft. land at the rate of bench mark value thereof including the situational advantage charges. In obedience to such letter dated 18.01.2020 of the Opposite Parties, the petitioner deposited said demanded amount, i.e., Rs.1,36,553/-(rupees one lakh thirty-six thousand five hundred fifty-three) before the Cuttack Development Authority (in Page 2 of 9 short the’ C.D.A.’) towards the cost of that excess 87.5 sq.ft. land as per Annexures-5 and 6 and the Cuttack Development Authority accepted the same, but still then, the Opposite Parties did not take any step for allotment of that 87.5 sq.ft land in favour of the petitioner executing proper documents in his favour. Thereafter, Opposite Party No.3 issued Letter No.557 dated 19.01.2021(Annexure-7) to the petitioner demanding double of the prevailing benchmark value for allotment of the said extra 87.5 sq.ft land, even though, the Opposite Parties had already received Rs.1,36,553/- (rupees one lakh thirty-six thousand five hundred fifty-three) on dated 24.01.2020 from the petitioner on the basis of the letter dated 18.01.2020 of the Opposite Party No.3 for the allotment of the same. As per the resolution dated 03.04.2018(Annexure-10) of Tender Committee Meeting of the Opposite Parties, it was decided in the item No.22/119 that, for the allotment and fixation of the rate for additional land in Shikharpur House Accommodation Scheme and different Sectors of Abhinaba Bidanasi Project Area, i.e., Sectors 6 to 13, the authorities decided to receive the normal bench mark value of the additional land instead of double bench mark value of the same. In spite of such resolution dated 03.04.2018 (Annexure-10) of the Opposite Parties, the Opposite Parties are demanding double bench mark Page 3 of 9 value for the allotment of extra 87.5 sq.ft land in favour of the petitioner. For which, without getting any way, the petitioner approached this Hon’ble Court by filing this writ petition against the Opposite Parties praying for quashing the above demand Letter No.557 dated 19.01.2021(Annexure-7). 3. The Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 submitted their counter affidavit
Decision
challenging the writ petition of the petitioner taking their stands that, in fact, the petitioner is in possession of extra 87.5 sq.ft land at Sector-10 of C.D.A. area, which is adjacent to his allotted Group-D category plot. On the basis of the policy dated 02.06.2015 of the Government, i.e., Housing and Urban Development Department and subsequent notification of C.D.A. property (Management and Allotment) Regulation, 2016, the demand notice dated 19.01.2021(Annexure-7) was issued to the petitioner demanding double amount of bench mark of value for the excess 87.5 sq.ft land under his possession. Though, in fact, in pursuant to the letter dated 18.01.2020, the petitioner had deposited the bench mark value of the same, i.e., Rs.1,36,553/-(rupees one lakh thirty-six thousand five hundred fifty-three), but, such deposit was not inconformity with the policy of the Government. For which, the petitioner is required to pay the revised amount, i.e., Rs.1,36,552/-(rupees one lakh thirty-six thousand five hundred fifty-two) as per Annexure-7, Page 4 of 9 but, the denial of the petitioner to pay the same cannot be sustainable under law. Because, the additional 87.5 sq.ft land is adjacent to the allotted Group-D land of the petitioner and the additional 87.5 sq.ft land has increased the size of his allotted area. For which, without paying the demanded amount, the petitioner cannot retain the said excess 87.5 sq.ft land. That apart, C.D.A. is bound by the decision of the Government, i.e., Housing and Urban Development Department vide Annexure-1/3 as well as its draft Regulation, 2016 vide Annexure-B/3. For which, the writ petition filed by the petitioner for quashing the Annexure-7 or for his exoneration from payment of demanded amount cannot be acceptable under law. Therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1 and the learned senior counsel for the Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3. 5. It is undisputed case of the parties that, the petitioner was properly allotted with a Group-D category plot measuring an area 1500 sq.ft.(50 x 30) at Annexure-10 under Bidanasi Project Area by virtue of an order dated 26.05.2003 of the Opposite Parties on payment of the required amount and the petitioner is also possessing 87.5 sq.ft extra land to the East side of his allotted Group-D category plot and on the basis of the Page 5 of 9 letter dated 18.01.2020 of the Opposite Party No.3 on behalf of all the Opposite Parties, the petitioner has deposited bench mark value of the said extra land, i.e., Rs.1,36,553/-(rupees one lakh thirty-six thousand five hundred fifty-three) before the Opposite Parties through proper acknowledgement receipt issued by the Opposite Party No.3 as per Annexures-5 and 6 for allotment of the said extra 87.5 sq.ft land in his favour and after receiving such demanded amount, i.e., Rs.1,36,553/- (rupees one lakh thirty-six thousand five hundred fifty-three) from the petitioner, the Opposite Parties issued notice to the petitioner on dated 19.01.2021 vide letter No.557(Annexure-7) demanding double of the prevailing bench mark value of the same for allotment of that additional 87.5 sq.ft land in his favour. 6. Now, the question arises, whether the aforesaid additional demand, i.e., Rs.1,36,552/-(rupees one lakh thirty-six thousand five hundred fifty- two) as per Letter No.557 dated 19.01.2021 (Annexure-7) by the Opposite Party No.3 from the petitioner in spite of receiving the bench mark value towards the cost of the extra 87.5 sq.ft land is sustainable under law? 7. It is forthcoming from the own document (which has been approved by the Opposite Parties in the proceedings of Tender Committee Meeting dated 03.04.2018 in item No.22/119 that, the Page 6 of 9 authorities, i.e., Opposite Parties decided to realize normal bench mark value instead of double bench mark value for allotment of additional land in the Sector-10, Bidanasi Project Area in favour of the possessors thereof. On the basis of such approved resolution of the Opposite Parties, the Opposite Party No.3 issued letter dated 18.01.2020 to the petitioner directing him (petitioner) to deposit Rs.1,36,553/-(rupees one lakh thirty- six thousand five hundred fifty-three) towards the bench mark value of the extra 87.5 sq.ft land and accordingly, the petitioner deposited the said amount on dated 24.01.2020 as per Annexures-5 and 6 before the Opposite Parties. 8. When, the Opposite Parties have already received Rs.1,36,553/- (rupees one lakh thirty-six thousand five hundred fifty-three) from the petitioner on dated 24.01.2020 on the basis of their own letter dated 18.01.2020 towards the bench mark value of the extra 87.5 sq. ft land according to their own resolution vide Annexure-10, then at this juncture, subsequently, the Opposite Parties should not have made “U” turn demanding double of the bench mark value for the said 87.5 sq.ft excess land from the petitioner as per Letter No.557 dated 19.01.2021 vide Annexure-7. Because, the Opposite Parties being the Principal Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, Government of Odisha, Page 7 of 9 Vice-Chairman, Cuttack Development Authority and Secretary, Cuttack Development Authority are not the ordinary litigants, but, they are model as well as virtuous litigants. For which, all fairness is to be expected from such authorities. So, the Opposite Parties being the model as well as virtuous litigants, they should not change their decisions time to time. Because, they all are the public authorities, upon whom, naturally, public trust is reposed. For which, they (Opposite Parties) should not approbate and reprobate at the same time. When, they(Opposite Parties) have accepted the bench the mark value for the excess 87.5 sq.ft land on dated 24.01.2020 from the petitioner on the basis of their own Letter No.634 dated 18.01.2020, then, at this juncture, they(Opposite Parties) should not have demanded double of the bench mark value for the same from the petitioner one year thereafter on the basis of their Letter No.557 dated 19.01.2021 (Annexure-7) indirectly reprobating/recalling their earlier letter dated 18.01.2020. As per law, every action of the Opposite Parties should be fair, legitimate and above board, but, they have not done so. For which, the above demand of the Opposite Parties, i.e., double of the bench mark value for the extra 87.5 sq.ft land as per letter dated 19.01.2021 vide Page 8 of 9 Annexure-7 from the petitioner after receiving the bench mark value for the same on dated 24.01.2020 cannot be sustainable under law. Therefore, such demand made by the Opposite Parties from the petitioner as per Letter No.557 dated 19.01.2021(Annexure-7) is liable to be quashed. 9. As such, there is merit in the writ petition filed by the petitioner. The same must succeed. 10. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed on contest. 11. The Letter No.557 dated 19.01.2021 (Annexure-7) issued by the Opposite Parties to the petitioner is quashed. The Opposite Parties are directed to allot additional 87.5 sq.ft land as per law in favour of the petitioner, as the Opposite Parties have already received the demanded bench mark value thereof on the basis of their demand through letter dated 18.01.2020. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of finally. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: JAGABANDHU BEHERA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUTTACK Date: 03-Apr-2025 16:18:28 ( A.C. Behera ) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 3rd of April, 2025/ Jagabandhu, P.A. Page 9 of 9