Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 299 (ORI)

Manjusri Das v. Collector, Nayagarh

2015-05-04

A.K.RATH

body2015
JUDGMENT A.K. Rath, J. 1. The petitioner calls in question the legality and propriety of the notice dated 15.5.2012 issued by the Executive Officer, Notified Area Council, Nayagarh-opposite party no.2, vide Annexure-1, directing her to vacate the shop room nos.17 and 18 within seven days. The said notice was issued by the opposite party no.2 pursuant to the decision of the Notified Area Council (hereinafter referred to as “N.A.C.”) dated 27.04.2012 to construct a community hall in the said area. 2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the short facts of the case of the petitioner are that she is a landless woman and belongs to BPL category. She submitted an application to the opposite party no.2 for allotment of residential quarter. On 23.12.2011, the opposite party no.2 allotted quarter nos.17 and 18 in her favour. She along with her family is residing in the said quarters. She used to deposit the monthly rents, electricity bills, water bills, etc. While the matter stood thus, on 15.5.2012, the opposite party no.2 issued notice of eviction directing her to vacate the quarters within seven days. 3. Pursuant to issuance of notice, counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite party nos.1 and 2. It is stated that the Nayagarh town is situated in a hilly area. The old town and new town are divided by a hill. There is no development in the NAC. The inhabitants of the NAC are facing difficulties due to want of a community hall. The State Government provides aid to construct a community hall in the old town area. In the proposed place, there are old shop rooms. The rent of shop rooms is fixed at Rs.150/-per month. Some people have taken the shop rooms on rent basis. They used to sublet the same. The NAC has passed a resolution dated 27.4.2012 to construct a community hall near Maa Dakhinakali Temple and middle of both old and new town. There is no other vacant place in the nearby area. It is further stated that the room nos.17 and 18 are the shop rooms without any facility of kitchen. As per clause 5 of the allotment letter no.2019 dated 23.12.2011, the authority may cancel or increase monthly rent every year, if he wants. The petitioner has utilized the shop rooms for her dwelling house violating the terms and conditions stipulated in the allotment letter. As per clause 5 of the allotment letter no.2019 dated 23.12.2011, the authority may cancel or increase monthly rent every year, if he wants. The petitioner has utilized the shop rooms for her dwelling house violating the terms and conditions stipulated in the allotment letter. It is further stated that the shop rooms are not allotted to the persons belong to the BPL category in the NAC. Whenever the rehabilitation of BPL families will be taken up, the NAC will give priority to the petitioner in allotting a room/quarter. It is further stated that the shop rooms are very old and dilapidated condition and cannot be utilized for residential purpose. Further all other shop rooms have been vacated excluding the petitioner. 4. The petitioner has also filed a rejoinder affidavit. It is stated that she has never violated the terms and conditions stipulated of the allotment letter. As per clause 8 of the allotment letter, the occupants will execute an agreement in every eleven months. Though the letter of allotment was issued on 23.12.2011, the eviction notice was issued on 15.05.2012 just after five months of the allotment. It is further stated that there are three community halls in the old town. Apart from that, one Kalyani Mandap is very nearer to the quarter of the petitioner. Room nos.17 and 18 are not shop rooms, but are residential quarters. With mala fide intention, the eviction notice has been issued by the opposite party no.2. It is further stated that room nos.16, 19 and 20 are still being occupied by some persons and room nos.15 and 21 are in a dilapidated condition. 5. Heard Mr. J.K. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P.K. Muduli, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State and Mr. U.K. Sahoo, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2. 6. Though in the letter of allotment dated 23.12.2011, vide Annexure-2, it is stated that quarter nos.17 and 18 were allotted in favour of the petitioner, but as would be evident from the averments made in the counter affidavit, the same are shop rooms. The stand of the opposite parties that the NAC has proposed to construct a community hall has not been disputed nor denied by the petitioner. Construction of a community hall is for a public purpose and the same will cater to the need of the inhabitants of the NAC. The stand of the opposite parties that the NAC has proposed to construct a community hall has not been disputed nor denied by the petitioner. Construction of a community hall is for a public purpose and the same will cater to the need of the inhabitants of the NAC. Merely because a few shop rooms are still occupied by some persons, the same does not per se a ground to occupy the shop rooms which are in a dilapidated condition. In paragraph-3 of the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner has stated that room nos.15 and 21 are in a dilapidated condition. Thus one fact is crystal clear that shop rooms are in a dilapidated condition. The allotment letter stipulates that the occupant will execute the agreement in every eleven months with the authority, but in the instant case no agreement has been executed. The petitioner has occupied the shop rooms in question for more than three years and four months. Clause 5 of the allotment letter, vide Annexure-2, shows that the authority may cancel or increase the monthly quarter rent every year, if he wants. Neither any resolution of the NAC nor the policy decision of the Government has been brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner to show that the shop rooms were allotted to the petitioner since she belongs to BPL category. Further the resolution dated 27.04.2012 passed by the NAC has also not been challenged. The petitioner has no right to continue in the shop rooms. 7. In view of the proposed resolution of the NAC to construct a community hall in the area where shop rooms exist, the opposite party no.2 has rightly issued notice of eviction, vide Annexure-4. Thus, no case is made out for interference of this Court. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.