LAWS(ORI)-1996-7-29

SATRUGHAN NAYAK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

Decided On July 29, 1996
SATRUGHAN NAYAK Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ORISSA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners who were applicants for allotment of different types of houses under Gopabandhu Nagar Housing Scheme, Stage-II, Chhond under Rourkela area by the Rourkela Development Authority, have jointly approached this Court, challenging the enhancement in rate and alteration in the size of plots, intimated vide Annexure-4 the letter of provisional allotment made in their favour being illegal and contrary to the stipulations made in the brochure issued to them, a copy whereof is Annexure-1.

(2.) The main grievance of the petitioners as revealed from the pleadings and submissions made on their behalf is that the erstwhile Regional Improvement Trust, Rourkela, published an advertisement inviting application for allotment of houses of different categories like, Economically Weaker Section (E.W.S.), Lower Income Group (L.I.G.), Middle Income Group (M.I.G.) and Higher Income Group (H.I.G.) at Gopabandu Nagar Composite Housing Accommodation Scheme at Chhend in last part of December, 1991. A Brochure was published giving in details, the area of the land, the number of rooms and the size thereof, the price of the house fixed for different categories of houses etc. Petitioners Nos. 1 to 7 made applications for M.I.G. Houses, and made earnest money deposits, petitioners Nos. 8 to 47 made applications for L.I.G. houses and similarly petitioners Nos. 48 to 68 applied for houses under E.W.S. scheme along with required earnest money deposit. The number of applicants being found to be much more than the available houses, the selection for allotment was made on the basis of lottery and the result of lottery was published in the newspaper and provisional allotment letters were received by the petitioners, copies whereof are Annexure4 series. The petitioners to their surprise found from Annexure-4, that the price of houses under EWS category has increased to the tune of 105%, houses under LIG category to the tune of 90% and the price of MIG category houses to a tune of 35% than the price fixed under the Brochure a copy whereof is Annexure-1. The amount of earnest money, security deposit and the amount of instalment had also been enhanced. Furthermore the size of the plot and area has also been altered, behind the back of the petitioners and thus the action in illegal and arbitrary. The minute details of deviation in prices of different category of houses and area have been given in the writ application.An exhaustive counter affidavit has been filed by the Rourkela Development Authority and its Vice-Chairman, opposite parties 2 and 3. The opposite parties have raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the joint Wirt Petition filed by several writ petitioners with separate and distinct causes of action inasmuch as it is pleaded that this petition involves disputed question of fact, which may not be gone into in a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. The opposite parties 2 and 3 have controverted the allegations made by the petitioners, and further, it is said that in the brochure, it was clearly indicated that the cost factor was approximate and the proposed area was tentative and therefore, if there is an increase in cost due to increase in cost of an land, escalation in labour, materials and tender premium, additional work taken up or increased cost in providing external infrastructure, water supply, road, electricity etc. no exception can be taken to such enhancement or modification made only in M.I.G. category of houses. It is further stated that if any of the petitioners who are applicants for the L.I.G. category of houses, do not want the change of sizes of the plots, then the opposite parties are prepared to revert back to the original position, reduced the plot sizes. However, it is said that the prepared scheme had to be approved by the Urban Development Department of the State Government and further to be cleared by HUDCO and in such circumstance, taking into account the increased cost factor of both land and construction, the plot areas have been fixed and tentative cost has been worked out. It is further stated that HUDCO, which gives advance finance for all these schemes charges different rate of interest and interest tax and fixes different loan slabs to cover, cost of a particular house, including its own construction cost. The general condition of allotment has been filed as Annexure A/2 was also published in the notice board.

(3.) Mr. D.K. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties 2 and 3 has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ application. It is his contention that each of the writ petitioners has a separate cause of action, different pleas and aggrieved by individual order of allotment and therefore the present writ application at the instance of 68 petitioners, who are applicants for various categories of houses cannot join together and file a joint writ application. True it is, as a general rule, two or more persons cannot join in a single petition for a writ to enforce separate claims. Where injury to a class of persons is done by a common order or law, the case has to be treated as an exception to the general rule and in that event, a joint petition can be maintained. In the case at hand, the petitioners are provisional allottees of house sites by the Rourkela Development Authority, they are all aggrieved by the alleged decision of the authority enhancing the price of houses arbitrarily and the alteration of the area of plots in question. A challenge has also been made in the writ application to the competence of the authority for enhancement of the price and the arbitrary and unreasonable magnitude of the hike in prices etc. Thus, all the petitioners have been aggrieved by the decision of the Development Authority in enhancing the prices and altering the area of the plots allotted to several applicants. In that view of the matter, in our considered opinion, the present writ petition is maintainable in law. Viewed from another angle, the objection is otherwise not tenable, since at the time of admission, the petitioners were directed to pay Court-fees for each of the writ petitioners and Court-fee has also been filed accordingly. In that view of the matter, even if a joint petition can be viewed as an irregularity, such irregularity is cured by payment of separate deficit Court-fees in respect of each of the petitioners. In this connection, a reference may be made to the view taken by the Allahabad High Court in case of Chandra Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in AIR 1963 All 301, where it has been held, even if a joint writ petition is not maintainable, it is a mere irregularity which can be cured by requiring the petitioners to pay deficit Courtfees instead of asking them to file separate Writ Petitions.