USHADEVI SUKHANI Vs. CUTTACK DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this writ petition has prayed for quashing the order dated 16.4.2012 passed by the Planning Member, Cuttack Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the C.D.A.') - opp. party No. 3 vide Annexure-4 and for a direction to accord permission to the petitioner for construction of a residential house over the plot allotted to her by the C.D.A. Facts of the case disclose that pursuant to an advertisement made by the C.D.A. for sale of plots for construction of residential houses in Sector-9, Market Nagar under the scheme of Abhinaba Bidanasi Cuttack, the petitioner applied for a plot. Thereafter, a lottery was drawn and the petitioner was selected in the said lottery. On 13.12.1995, the Secretary/C.D.A. - Opp. party No. 2 sent a letter to the petitioner stating therein that she has been allotted with plot No. 64 of 'C' Category measuring an area of 3147.62 sqr. Ft. in Market Nagar, Sector-9 at Bidanasi Project Area. She was requested to take over possession of the said plot on or before 30.12.1995 by depositing the balance amount of Rs. 29,918/-, the total cost of the land being Rs. 1,15,058/- and the petitioner having paid the rest of the amount earlier. Thereafter, she paid the balance amount of Rs. 29,918/- and a possession handing over memo was given to the petitioner on 23.5.1996. The petitioner made an application for approval of the plan for construction of a residential house, before the opp. party No. 3 and as required, deposited an amount of Rs. 3540/- on 29.3.2012. However, by letter dated 16.4.2012, the opp. party No. 3 intimated the petitioner that as per the order of the Secretary dated 21.1.2012, any application for permission applied after expiry of the show cause period should not be considered till disposal of the show cause. The petitioner has further averred that on 25.11.2009 the Administrative Officer, C.D.A. sent a letter to one Promod Kumar Choraria requesting him to appear in person on 8.12.2009 regarding handing over possession of his allotted plot No. 1C/62. A copy of the said letter was endorsed to the petitioner requesting her to appear on the said date to settle the dispute. On 15.12.2009, again a letter was sent to the said Promod Kumar Choraria to appear on 21.12.2009 regarding handing over possession of allotted plot No. 1C/62 and a copy of the said letter was also endorsed to the petitioner requesting her to appear on the said date to settle the dispute. When the matter stood thus, on 23.12.2009, the Administrative Officer, C.D.A. deputed one Srikanta Das, Amin to conduct the spot enquiry in presence of the allottees of plot No. 1C/62 and 1C/63 in Sector-9 and demarcate their respective areas allotted in their favour on 29.12.2009. It may be mentioned that the petitioner is the adjacent plot owner of plot Nos. 1C/62 and 1C/63. On 7.6.2012, the opp. party No. 2 sent a letter to the petitioner stating therein that during demarcation, it was found that area of plot No. 1C/62 is 103 sqr. ft. less than the allotted area and there are some excess area in plot No. 1C/61, 1C/63 and 1C/64 than the area handed over to the allottees. The petitioner along with the adjacent plot owners were requested to be present on the site on 12.6.2012 for taking measurement of the aforesaid plots.

(2.) Dr. A.K. Rath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though in pen and paper, possession of plot No. 1C/64 in Sector-9 was handed over to her by means of a possession handing over memo dated 23.5.1996, the C.D.A. authorities have not properly measured the land which is evident from the subsequent act and the letter of possession was a formal one. After refusal to accord permission for construction of the house, the petitioner on enquiry from the C.D.A. authorities came to know that a show cause notice was issued to her on 25.8.2011 calling upon her to show cause as to why the allotment in her favour should not be cancelled on the grounds, inter alia, that the petitioner had not constructed the residential house over plot allotted to her within five years from the date of allotment. The petitioner denies to have received such notice at any point of time. The petitioned on 5.3.2012 intimated the C.D.A. authorities that due to unavoidable circumstances and shortage of finance, she was not in a position to construct the house. Dr. Rath, learned counsel submitted that it is due to latches of the authorities, the exact plot allotted to the petitioner was not demarcated for which the petitioner amongst other reasons could not submit the plan for approval earlier and no laches can be attributed to the petitioner for the said act. He, therefore, submitted that the letter under Annexure-4 is contrary to law and should be quashed with a direction to the C.D.A. authorities to approve the building plan submitted by the petitioner.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the Secretary, in-charge, C.D.A., Cuttack, inter alia, stating that many of the allottees who were allotted plots in the year 1995-96 and before have not undertaken construction within the time stipulated in the Brochure or in the allotment letter as the case may be. Consequently, a number of plots fell vacant though number of other eligible persons are waiting for a plot in C.D.A. Project Area. Attention of this Court has been drawn in the counter affidavit to the order passed in W.P. (C) No. 20427 of 2009.