Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 722 (ORI)

DILIP KUMAR SINHA v. STATE OF ORISSA

2008-08-19

B.P.RAY, I.M.QUDDUSI

body2008
JUDGMENT : I.M. Quddusi, J. - By means of this writ petition, the Petitioner has prayed for issuance of writ to the opposite parties 2 to 4 to allot the surplus land adjoining the plot No. MIG-05 of Kalinga Vihar Housing Scheme, Patrapada allotted to him pursuant to the decision taken in the 102nd meeting of the Bhubaneswar Development Authority held on 11.1.2008. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner was allotted a M.I.G. house bearing number MIG-05 in Kalinga Vihar Housing Scheme of Bhubaneswar Development Authority (in short, B.D.A.) and consequent upon allotment, the Petitioner paid the cost of the house.allotted to him and possession was handed over to him on 9.12.2002. It may be stated here that the aforesaid plot was allotted to the Petitioner through lottery held on 25.7.1995. After the lottery and prior to taking over possession of the house, the Petitioner found some surplus area (patch) adjacent to the area allotted to him. He made a request to the BOA for allotment of that surplus land to him but the same was not allotted to him. Thereafter also he made repeated representations to allot the said surplus land to him. But he was given to understand that his representation would be placed before the authority. As no intimation was received by the Petitioner with regard to his request for allotment of the surplus land, he made representations to the Secretary, B.D.A. on 15.10.2007 and 16.10.2007 but no heed was paid towards the same. Therefore, he filed the instant writ petition. 3. In spite of issue of notice to opposite parties 2 to 4 by registered post, they have not appeared. 4. The Petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the BDA as contained in Annexures-6 and 6/a, i.e. the decision taken by the BOA on Agenda Item No. 19/102 in its 102 nd meeting and the office order issued pursuant to the same respectively. The office order reads as under: As auctioning of patches for commercial purposes in the middle of residential house would cause problem, it is decided that the patches may be allotted at the present approved rate giving preference to adjacent house owners. Plots of 1000 sft or more can be allotted independently. The corner plot characteristics and the scheme conditions should be maintained/followed while allotting patches. Decision should be taken on a case-to case basis. Plots of 1000 sft or more can be allotted independently. The corner plot characteristics and the scheme conditions should be maintained/followed while allotting patches. Decision should be taken on a case-to case basis. Perusal of the above quoted order shows that preference for allotment of patches is to be given to the adjacent house owners and plots of 1000 sft or more can be allotted independently. Therefore, if the patches are in between two houses, each house owner is entitled to get half of the land as the patch is available between two houses. It is the case of the Petitioner that the house allotted to him is on the corner plot. 5. Therefore, if the surplus land in the form of patch is in excess of 1000 sft, the same is to be allotted independently. But in our opinion that can be done if anyone of the adjoining house owners is not interested. As in the instant case, the Petitioner is interested and has moved applications for allotment of the patch adjacent to his house, we 'dispose of the writ petition with the direction to the opposite parties to allot the surplus land to the Petitioner, which is adjacent to his house if it is less than 1000 sft. at the present approved rate. If the patch is more than 1000 sft. and the Petitioner is interested to purchase the same, as prayed for by him, the B.D.A. shall consider allotment of the same independently giving preference to the Petitioner. If the Petitioner is interested to get less than 1000 sft. without independent allotment, it would be open for him to approach the authorities along with copy of this order and on such request the authority shall make allotment according to their policy as circulated vide the office order quoted above. There would be no order as to costs. B.P. Ray, J. 6. I agree.