IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK. W.P.(c) No. 6923 of 2009. Subject Code: Priyanath Subudhi Petitioner. VERSUS State of Orissa and others Opposite Parties. INDEX SINQ 2 Detcrption ee 1 Writ application 01 to 07 08 to 20 Annexure: 1 True copy of the aforestated brochure published by the Bhubaneswar Development Authority. 3. Annexure: 2 21 True copy of the letter dated 19.02.2008 of the Allotment Officer, Bhubaneswar Development Authority. 4 Annexure: 3 22 True copy of the Bank challan showing deposit of the balance cost of the plot. 5. Annexure: 23 True copy of the order dated 24.06.2000 handing over possession of the allotted plot 6. Annexure: 5 series 24 to 2B True copies of the representations of the petitioner. 7, Annexure: 6 i 29 True copy of the news paper cutting of the ‘The Samaj’ dated 01.10.2007. 8. Annexure: 7 30 Trve copy of the letter No.1102/AL dated 04.02.2009 31 9. Annexure: 8 True copy of the advertisement dated 18.02.2009. Vakalatnama Total Pages: 31 Cuttack Date: 27.04.2009. Advocate for the petitioner.Ne Gk IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, SUTTA 2009 {ORIGINAL JURISDICTIC Code No: ot the Constitution of In the matter of an application under Article 226 india, 1950. AND In the matter of ‘An application challenging the cancellation of allotment n i of the plot under the Self-Financing Commercial Complex scheme, 1993 of. the Bhubanesvos Development Authority. AND In the matter of priyanath Subudhi, aged about 54 years, son of late Banambar Subudhi, At/PO: Tamando, P.S. Khandagiri, District: Khurda. Petitioner. VERSUS State of Orissa, represented through its Commissioner-cum- Secretary, Urban Development Department, Secretariat Building, Bhubaneswar, District: Khurda. 2. Bhubaneswar Development Authority, Bhubaneswar represented through its Vice Chairman, Akash Sova Building, sachivalaya Marg , Bhubaneswar-751001, District: Khurda,a sment Authority: 3. Allotment Officer, Bhubaneswar pevelor Rie g . Bhubanes ‘Akash Sova Building, sachivalaye mara 751001, District: Khurda. opposite Parties ‘ g, ph.0. (Law), the Hon'ble n, BSC.LL.B. Ph. ; te A goto ‘and His companion Justices Chief Justice of the High Cour of Oriss of the said Hon'ble Court Humble petition of the med above; petitioner na! That in the present writ application, the petitioner begs to challenge the arbitrary and whimsical order allotment of plot no.72-C, which was allotted in his favour Complex at Chandrasekharpur by } Centre Self Financing Commercial Letter No. 768/AL dt. 14.02.2000 as per the lay-out plan prepared by lopment Authority on the ground that though prepared by it over the area allotted by the it was found that | of cancellation of under District the Bhubaneswar Dev the said lay-out plan was partment, on a joint survey, General administration Det \d been allotted in favour of the petitioner the plot no.72-C which har situates beyond the allotted area. That shorn of unnecessary detoils, the petitioner humbly 2) the Bhubaneswar Development begs to submit that in the year 1993, ‘Authority introduced a scheme for allotment of pl jing Scheme of Phase-! lots for commercial purposes at Chandrasekhar between B.D.A.Hous and Phase-4 Housing Scheme of the Housing Board on the western side of Bhubaneswar-Nandankanan Road known as ‘District Centre’ and invited applications from the intending purchasers by 16.01.1993 as per the Information Brochure. On 15.01.1993, the petitioner submitted the filed in application form which formed a part of the aforestated= Bite m of R5.15, brochure alongwith deposit Challan of the EMO 1e. 9 sun 545/- Covering 15% of the total cost of the plot he chure of the aforestated Pro rue, copy published by the Bhubanes is annexed and war Development is marked OS Authority Annexure: 1. the Allotment Officer, ite party no. 3, ; Rtn h letter No.984/AL.dated Bhubaneswar Development Authority throug) 19.02.2000, informed the petitioner that @ measuring on area of 1529.40 sq.ft. has been alo! d Rs.1, 07,058/- has been finalised towart lot bearing No.72-C, ted in favour of the ds the cost of the petitioner an ate Fel plot, which is required to be deposited by the end of es Petitioner, without wosting any time deposited an amount of Rs.96, 513/- on 28.2.2000, through Bank challan towards the balance cost of the plot which includes the additional amount of rs.5, 000/- for a comer plot True copy of the aforementioned letter dated 19.02.2002 of the Allotment Officer, Bhubaneswar Development Authority and the Bank challan showing deposit of the balance cost of the plot are annexed and are marked as Annexures: 2 & 3, 4, That after deposit of the aforestated amount, the Bhubaneswar Development Authority handed over the physical Possession of the allotted plot on 24.06.2000. But it is unfortunate to mention here that even after a long lapse of time, the authority did not execute any such deed as per the brochure nor took any step to Prevent unwarranted interference in the possession of the petitioner. True copy of the order dated 24.06.2000 handing over possession of the allotted plot is, ‘annexed and is marked as Annexure: 4.hat the pe Jeed and nonsdelivery of the actual physical possession several representations betore the opposite party no.2. Pelifoner ® intimated about the unauthorised encroachment over Ihe § yid plot by gto have remained in claiming to hov' patta issued by the one Janakar Sahoo of village: Gadakan possession since long on the strength of a hata Jomindar of Kanika estate. Fue copies of iia. represemone™ are annexed ond ore marked as Annexure: 5 series. that the petitioner also drew the attention of the opposite citing instances about fraudulent claims on the 4 to have been issued by the ex-proprietor of rty-Authority, by basis of hata patta allege Konika. Alongwith his representation, the pefitioner submitted the news paper cutting, which revealed that the leamed Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar vide his order in TS.No.102/324 of 2000/1996, considering the non-elevancy of the documents rendered by the Konika Jamindar was pleased to dismiss the suit in which ownership wos claimed over the suit land on the strength of the hata patta issued by the previous Jamindar of Kanika. Said news item was published in the Oriya news daily namely ‘The Samaj’, dated 01.10.2007. True copy of the news paper cutting of the “The Samaj’ dated 01.10.2007 is annexed and is marked as Annexure: 6. 7 That the opposite party no.3 communicated the office order dated 04.02.2009 i.e. the order of cancellation of allotment of plot no.72-C which was allotted in his favour under District Centre Self Financing Commercial Complex at Chandrasekharpur Py Letter No. 768/AL doted 14.02.2000 as per the lay-out plan prepared by the shuboneswar Development Authority in an arbitrary and whimsical manner, on the gfound that though the soid ley-out plan wasof the area allotted by the General SPariment of the Government of Orissa, yet on a joint Y was for wnd that the plot no.72-C which had been allotted in Stitioner, situates beyond the allotted area. Tue copy of the letter No.1102/AL dated 04.02.2009 is annexed and marked as Annexure: 7. 7. That through advertisement/notification published in local Newspaper on 18.02.2009, the Bhubaneswar Development Authority hos again invited applications for allotting assets/plots in the same District Centre at Chandrasekharpur, though the allotment in favour of the petitioner could be unilaterally cancelled on the ground that the Plot which was allotted in favour of the petitioner has been found to be within the Mouza: Gadakan and as such it was beyond the land allotted by the G.A. Department of the Government and that Concerning the scid land, a private party has also raised a dispute. True copy of 18.02.2009 is annexed ond is marked as Annexure: 8, the advertisement dated 8. That the unilateral cancellation of the plot/asset allotted tong back and even after delivery of possession is bad in law and can not be countenanced with the salutary principles of natural justice. The Statutory authority was expected to set standard for others in the matter of fair procedure regarding allotment. On the other hand the Authority having started the scheme in 1993 and collected the entire Price of the plot proceeded to cancel the allotment atter 15 years and did not at all even consider the scope for adjusting the allottee in fespect of vacant plots as would be apparent from the fact that the subsequent advertisement shows that plot nos. 310 and 311 ore available foe allotment in the District Centre under the same scheme at Chandrasekharpur. Having altered their position on account of the:Promises hy Sd Out by the opposite parties, the peliioner seeks the interventi Mon of this Hon'ble Court and begs to b submit that the Authority 's bound to al 10 allot and detiver similar plot/asset 9. That the petitioner finding no other alternative and equally Sf efficacious remedy available to him, has sought for the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court, for redressal of his tievances PRAYER It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the writ application, issue ‘Rule Nisi’ calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the order of cancellation shall not be quashed and on their failure to show cause or showing insutficient cause may further be pleased to make the Rule absolute and /or may be pleased to direct the authority to allot and deliver a similar plot in favour of the petitioner in the same trict Centre or at any other suitable place without further escalation cost and this Hon'ble Court may also be pleased further to issue such other/turther order(s}/direction(s)/rit(s), as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. ‘And for this act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray. Cuttack, By the petitioner through, Date: 27.04.2009. Advocate.ot AFFIDAVIT I, Priyanath Subudhi, aged about 54 years, 50" of late p.g, Khandagiri, District Banambar Subudhi, At/PO: Tamando, Khurda, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows 1 That I am the petitioner in the present writ application 2 That the facts stated above are true to the e and belief, ) f Dery ancl A 12°) eee hee best of my knowledg Identified by U Deponent A.C Certified that due to want of cartridge papers this matter has been prepared on white thick papers. Advocate.