Z ENGINEERS CONSTRUCTION Vs. BHUBANESWAR DEVELOPMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 6.2.2006 passed by the Bhubaneswar Development Authority, opposite party No. 1 (hereinafter called 'B.D.A.'). By the said order the Planning Member of B.D.A. informed one Tapan Kumar Mohanty, who claims to be the Managing Director of M/s. Z. Engineers Construction (P) Ltd., the petitioner -company that its application filed on 19.10.2005 for construction of a residential/commercial S+8 storied building cannot be considered for certain reason mentioned in the said order. The reasons for non -consideration of the petitioner's application is that the plot is located in the green belt/Commercial zone as per the CD.P. of Bhubaneswar. The other reasons is that the building plan is not in conformity with Rule 70(8) of Bhubaneswar Development Authority (Planning and Building Standards) Regulations, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as 'Regulations, 2001').

(2.) THE material facts of the case are that for construction of a S+8 residential building over plot No. 264(P), 265 in Mouza Chandrasekharpur in Bhubaneswar, a plan is stated to have been submitted on 4.7.2002 by the petitioner in the prescribed form under Section 16(1) of Orissa Development Authorities Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It was alleged that the said plan was submitted in conformity with Clause 70(2) read with Table 17(2)(b) Column 3, Serial No. 9 of the Regulation. . The further case of the petitioner -company is that by its letter dated 11.2.2003 sent to the Vice -Chairman, BDA, it was brought to the notice of the Vice -Chairman that permission from the BDA to undertake development with respect to the plot in question was filed on 4.7.2002 and its application was registered on 4.7.2002. More than two months had elapsed since the submission of the application by the petitioner -company but till date it had not been either approved or rejected. It was made clear in the said letter that if within a further period of one month from the date of receipt of the notice no communication of either granting or refusing permission or for requisitioning of any relevant information was received by the petitioner -company, then the petitioner -company would presume the permission as applied for has been deemed to have been granted. In answer to the said letter, the B.D.A. sent on 26.2.2003 its letter to the Chief Architect, Government of Orissa, Bhubaneswar enclosing therein a set of revised plan containing three numbers of drawing and copy of clarification letter submitted by the Chief Architect in response to the observations made by the Chief Architect. The Chief Architect was also requested by the Planning Member, Bhubaneswar to take appropriate action in the matter and his considered view was also requested to be communicated to the Planning Member of B.D.A. to be placed in the next Development Plan and Building Permission Committee. A copy of the said letter was sent to the Managing Director of the petitioner -company for necessary information and interaction with the Chief Architect and it was also made clear that the said letter was issued in response to the statutory notice received by the B.D.A. 13.2.2003.

(3.) THEREAFTER , several letters were exchanged between the parties and ultimately the stand of BDA is reflected in its letter dated 6.2.2006, as noted in the beginning of this judgment, which is marked as Annexure -12. Therefore as on date the plan has not been sanctioned, as according to BDA certain technical requirements have not been complied with by the petitioner -company.