SAKUNTALA GARABADU Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugning the orders dated 8.2.1984 (Annexure -10 series) passed by the Bhubaneswar Development Authority under Section 91 (1) of the Orissa Development Authorities Act, 1962 directing removal of certain constructions alleged to have been made unauthorisedly and the order dated 30.4.1984 (Annexure -II) in appeal confirming the original orders.

(2.) THE land over Which the unauthorised constructions are alleged to have been made was purchased by the petitioners by sale deeds dated 24 -6 -1983. It is averred by the petitioners that their predecessor -in -interest had submitted plan for approval of the Executive Officer, Notified Area Council, Bhubaneswar and the plan had been sanctioned.

(3.) HAVING regard to the contentions raised in the writ application, the short question that arise for consideration is if the petitioners were prejudiced by denial of an enquiry which they specifically sought and prayed for? The petitioners had categorically made the assertions in paragraph 3(m) of the writ application that despite their specific and clear prayer for an enquiry having regard to the contentious issues in the show cause as per Annexure -9, no opportunity was afforded to them for taking part in the hearing. No enquiry was made to ascertain whether there had ever been any violation of the Act. Had an opportunity been given to them, they could have satisfied the prescribed authority that no infringement had been made and no action was called for. There is no traverse of the aforesaid allegations in the return submitted by the opposite parties 2 and 3. In the return the opposite parties have asserted that there were constructions by the petitioners even after the Act came into force. The question is if before an order was passed to the prejudice of the petitioners, they should have been given reasonable opportunity.