SUSHILA DEVI RUNGTA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLOT No. P/13 having an area of 5400 sqr.ft. (hereinafter referred to as the 'disputed plot') is situated in an area ear -marked as residential area in Rourkela. In 1990 Smt. Sushila Devi Rungta, the writ petitioner in O.J.C. No. 13,952 of 1 996 purchased the disputed plot from the original lessee with necessary permission and submitted a plan seeking permission for construction of a four storied residential building. In the said plan the petitioner proposed to construct over a plinth area of 2271 sqr. ft. with front set -back of 22' -8'. rear set -back of 9' -10', Eastern side set -back of 5' -10' and Western side set -back of 13' -3'. Rourkela Regional Improvement Trust found that the proposed plan was defective inasmuch as it did not provide for the required rear set -back of 15' and side set -back of 10'. On June 4, 1991 Smt. Rungta modified the earlier plan and submitted the same for approval/licence. After holding necessary site -verification Licence No. 204/RRIT dated October 23, 1991 was granted permitting Smt. Rungta to construct her proposed building with plinth area of 2277 sq.ft. and front set -back of 22' -8', rear set -back of 9' -10', left (West) set -back of 13', right (East) set -back of 6'. Although permission was obtained for constructing a residential house Smt. Rungta suddenly, without obtaining any permission deviated from the approved plan with the intention of setting up a modern hospital.

(2.) SHRI Jagannath Das, writ petitioner in OJC No. 14266 of 1996 is the lessee of Plot No. P/12 to the contiguous west of disputed plot. When construction of building was almost complete up to the 2nd floor Shri Das, petitioner in OJC No. 14266 of 1996 and opp. party No. 5 in OJC No. 13952 of 1996, complained to the Rourkela Development Authority, which had in the meantime replaced the Rourkela Improvement Trust, about illegal and unauthorised construction by Smt. Rungta on the disputed Plot. On the basis of such complaint the Rourkela Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the 'RDA') issued notice No. 198/RDA, Under Sections 31(3) and 33(1) of the Orissa Town Planning and Improvement Trust Act, 1956 asking her to stop further construction and to show cause within 7 days why the licence granted in her favour would not be revoked and why she would not be prosecuted for such unauthorised construction. In response to the said notice, Smt. Rungta submitted her show -cause and also a revised plan for approval in terms of Section 16, of the Orissa Development Authority Act, 1982. In the meantime, Shri Jagannath Das filed Title Suit No. 21 of 1996 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Rourkela for a declaration that Smt. Rungta and/or her husband have/has no right to utilise the disputed plot for commercial purpose and for permanent injunction to that effect. In her reply Smt. Rungta claimed that the deviations were very minor in nature and the main objective of the approved plan was in tact. By letter dated March 29, 1996 a planning member of RDA informed Smt. Rungta that her revised plan was not considered as she had violated the earlier approved plan by raising constructions on set -back area of 798.36 sq. ft. and extending the construction by another 1 321.38 sq.ft. By the said letter Smt. Rungta was also directed to demolish the unauthorised portions at her cost and report compliance. Against the said direction Smt. Rungta moved the Vice -Chairman of the RDA Under Section 1 6(7). By letter dated August, 6. 1996 the R.D.A. rejected Smt. Rungta's application for permission to convert the residential building to hospital, and sent a notice directing her to demolish the unauthorised structures within 15 days from the date of receipt of that notice. An appeal was filed before the State Government. The Commissioner -cum -Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department being the appellate authority disposed of Smt. Rungta's appeal by order dated October 16, 1996. The appellate authority passed the following order :

(3.) AS both the writ petitions arise out of the same set of facts and involve similar questions of fact and law, those were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this composite judgment.