The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C ) No.35980 of 2023 Bibhuti Bhusan Sahoo …. Petitioner Mr. S.K. Dash, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha & Others …. Opposite Parties Mr. C.K. Pradhan, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 12.05.2025 Order No. 8. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. None appeared on behalf of the Talcher Municipality in spite of due appearance. None had also appeared on 01.05.2025 when the matter was taken up by this Court. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dt.19.10.2023 so passed by Opp. Party No.2 under Annexure-6. Vide the said order, Petitioner was directed to taker refund of the amount so deposited by him for allotment of shop room in Hatatota Market complex (near Ganesh Takies). // 2 // 4. It is the case of the Petitioner that Petitioner vide letter dt.06.05.1997 under Annexure-1 was allotted with a shop room measuring 14” x 9”. Vide the said notice, Petitioner was directed to deposit the 2nd instalment amount of Rs.12,840/-. It is contended that Petitioner though deposited the 2nd instalment, but no further notice was ever issued either to deposit the balance amount with allotment of the shop room in
Legal Reasoning
question. It is contended that vide letter dt.07.11.2005 under Annexure-B/2, Petitioner was only intimated to deposit the balance amount out of the total amount of Rs.72,000/-. It is contended that Petitioner in terms of the notice dt.07.11.2005 also deposited the balance amount and thereby paying the entire amount of Rs.72,000/- for allotment of the shop room in question. 4.1. It is contended that even though Petitioner deposited the entire amount of Rs.72,000/- for the purpose of allotment of shop room in the market complex in question, but no action was taken for allotment of the same in spite of several approach being made by the Petitioner. 4.2. It is contended that when claim of the Petitioner was not considered with allotment of shop room, Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C ) No.25239 of 2023. This Court vide order dt.10.08.2023 when directed Opp. Party No.2 to take a decision on the Petitioner’s claim vide the impugned order while not Page 2 of 6 // 3 // admitting that Petitioner has not deposited the entire amount of Rs.72,000/- for allotment of the shop room, Opp. Party No.2 directed the Petitioner to take refund of the amount as such a claim is not entertainable because of efflux of time. 4.3. It is contended that even though Petitioner made the deposit of the 1st and 2nd installment, but no demand was raised to deposit the 3rd instalment which was only made on 07.11.2005 vide letter under Annexure-B/2 to the counter affidavit filed by the Talcher Municipality. It is contended that in terms of the said notice, Petitioner paid the 3rd instalment and accordingly paid the entire amount of Rs.72,000/- for the purpose of such allotment. However, after taking the entire amount when the shop room was never allotted, Petitioner moved several applications and thereafter this Court by filing W.P(C ) No.25239 of 2023. 4.4. It is accordingly contended that since after receiving the entire consideration money of Rs.72,000/- the shop room was never allotted in favour of the Petitioner, the stand taken by the Municipality that the claim raised by the Petitioner is time-barred one is not acceptable. It is also contended that the shop room in question was never constructed for the purpose of allotment and the same was only constructed in the year 2024. After such completion of the construction, Page 3 of 6 // 4 // when the shop room was not allotted and steps were taken to allot the same to some other Petitioner, Petitioner filed I.A. No.5499 of 2024. It is contended that this Court vide order dt.07.05.2024 passed an interim order directing them that the newly constructed shop room shall not be handed over to any one and such an interim order is continuing as on date. 4.5. It is contended that since Petitioner has deposited the entire amount for the purpose of allotment of the shop room way back in the year 2005 and the shop room has already been constructed, there is no occasion on the part of Opp. Party No.2 not to allot the same for which the Petitioner made the initial deposit in the year 1997. It is accordingly contended that Opp. Party No.2 be directed to allot the shop room so constructed in the market complex in favour of the Petitioner. 5. Since in spite of appearance, nobody is there on behalf of Opp. Party No.2, this Court after going through the counter affidavit filed by the said Opp. Party, finds that pursuant to the advertisement issued in the year 1997 for allotment of shop room in Talcher Municipality, Petitioner made the application for allotment of the shop room and he was allotted with the shop room in the market complex However, since Petitioner failed to deposit the 3rd and final instalment in time, he was served with a notice on 07.11.2005 Page 4 of 6 // 5 // directing him to deposit the final instalment within seven (7) days. But since the Petitioner deposited the amount on 27.12.2005 which is beyond the stipulated time, Petitioner’s application was not considered for allotment of the shop room. It is accordingly contended that since Petitioner failed to deposit the 3rd instalment within the stipulated time period in terms of notice dt.07.11.2005, Petitioner has got no right of allotment. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds that basing on the notice issued by the Municipality in the year 1997, Petitioner was allotted with the shop-room and in terms of letter dt.06.05.1997, Petitioner deposited the 2nd instalment. No document has been enclosed by the Municipality showing any demand being raised for deposit of the 3rd instalment prior to 07.11.2005. Even though vide letter dt.07.11.2005, Petitioner was directed to deposit the amount within 7 days, but it is not disputed that the said amount was deposited on 27.12.2005. 6.1. Since from 1997 till 07.11.2005, no notice was ever issued to the Petitioner to deposit the 3rd and final instalment and in terms of the such notice issued on 07.11.2005, Petitioner admittedly deposited the amount on 27.12.2005, as per the considered view of this Court, claim of the Petitioner cannot be treated as time-barred. Since Petitioner has deposited the entire Page 5 of 6 // 6 // amount as due and admissible and there is an interim order in favour of the Petitioner, this Court directs Opp. Party No.2 to allot the shop room in favour of the Petitioner with due execution of the agreement. This Court deposit Opp. Party No.2 to complete the entire exercise within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Petitioner is permitted to provide a copy of this order to Opp. Party No.2 for compliance.
Decision
The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge sangita Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGITA PATRA Reason: authentication of order Location: high court of orissa, cuttack Date: 24-May-2025 13:13:17 Page 6 of 6