PABAN KUMAR SAHU Vs. ROURKELA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The attractive brand name of Public Interest Litigation has propelled some persons to approach the High Court for their personal gain or private profit with oblique motive. This case is a glaring example how the process of Court has been abused by the petitioners for furtherance for their personal gain and private profit.

(2.) The short facts of the case of the petitioners are that M/s. ORBIT Motors Pvt. Limited, Rourkela-opposite party no.3 applied for a plot measuring an area of Ac.0.650 dec. in front of its existing shop in the Civil Township, Rourkela Town Unit No.42 for construction of work shop and machineries, for which two lease cases, i.e., Case Nos.14 of 2006 and 15 of 2006 were initiated. Since the land applied for was coming under the Green Belt area, the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, whose office exists adjacent to the said plot, raised objections before the competent authority not to allot the same area. The local public also lodged complaint before the Rourkela Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as "the RDA") and Rourkela Land Allotment Committee (hereinafter referred to as "the LAC"), opposite parties 1 and 2. Considering the objections, opposite parties 1 and 2 cancelled the lease application and advised opposite party no.3 to apply for any other plot. Again opposite party no.3 applied for the lease of Ac.0.650 dec. in the same area. The said plot was classified as public zone and semi public zone. The LAC, opposite party no.2 rejected the application holding that the plots were coming under the public zone and semi public zone. Thereafter, opposite party no.3 laid a consumer dispute before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which was registered as C.D. Case No.17 of 2008. Challenging, inter alia, initiation of consumer disputes before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the opposite parties 1 and 2 filed writ petition, being W.P.(C) No.2757 of 2009, before this Court. On 18.5.2009 this Court disposed of the writ petition holding inter alia that the matter does not come under the purview of consumer disputes and disposed of the said writ petition. The further case of the petitioners is that though on earlier two occasions, applications of opposite party no.3 was rejected, but for the third time, the same was considered. The classification of the land was changed from public zone and semi public zone to commercial zone by holding the LAC meeting on 13.9.2010. A decision was taken to allot an area of Ac.0.650 dec. of land and adjust the price paid earlier by opposite party no.3 in Lease Case Nos.14 of 2006 and 15 of 2006. Opposite party no.1 published the matter in extra-ordinary issue of Orissa Gazette, vide letter no.3061/RDA. dated 26.6.2010 and in daily newspapers under letter No.4652/R.D.A. dated 5.3.2010 inviting objections and suggestions from the general public. The same modified the Interim Development Plan of Rourkela Civil Township by way of change of land use from public and semipublic zone to commercial zone. Thereafter, petitioner no.1 had filed objection before opposite party no.1 stating that he had interest over the land, as he was the power of attorney holder. Further the compensation was not paid for the land. As per the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act, the displaced families are to be given first priority for allotting the land and in the event the land is allotted, the petitioners and their family members would pay the market price, since they have no suitable house. A prayer was made not to change the land use from public and semi-public zone to commercial zone for the greater public interest. Without hearing objection filed by petitioner no.1, the land was allotted to opposite party no.3. It is further stated that the market value of the land was Rs.60,000/- in the year 1999-2000 and at the time of allotment, the price was Rs.3,34,000/- per dec. The present market value is Rs.5,00,000/- per dec. but opposite parties 1 and 2 allotted the land on 9.12.2013 measuring an area of Ac.0.650 dec. appertaining to khata 111, plot no.12/part A0.245, plot no.29/328/P A0.005 and plot no.12/part, A0.030, plot no.21/part A0.060 and plot no.29/328/part, A0.310 of village RTU No.42 at a price of Rs.39,00,000/-. After the correction of record of rights, patta was issued in favour of opposite party no.3 in the year 2014. With this factual scenario, a prayer has been made to cancel the lease granted in favour of opposite party no.3 in Lease Case Nos.14 of 2006 and 15 of 2006 and to direct the opposite party nos.1 and 2 to stop construction over the land.

(3.) Pursuant to issuance of notice, opposite parties 1, 2 and 3 have filed their respective counter affidavits.