SITANATH NAYAK Vs. CUTTACK DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case has a chequered history as the Petitioners had earlier approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition which was disposed of issuing certain directions. As the said directions were not complied with, the Petitioners filed a contempt petition which was also disposed of and ultimately the Opposite Parties -authorities passed an order which is under challenge in this petition.

(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that certain land was acquired by the Cuttack Development Authority (hereinafter called the 'CDA'), in the year 1984 and 1986. The Petitioners claim that their father had certain land which had also been acquired and possession was taken. The said land vested in the CDA free from all encumbrances. Compensation had been taken by the petitioners' father. Writ Petition, i.e. OJC Nos. 2731 of 1988 filed by Laxman Chandra Das and 29 Ors. v. State of Orissa, was filed before this Court seeking allotment of residential plots at concessional rate. This Court vide Judgment and Order Dated 4.5.1994 disposed of the said petition issuing directions to CDA to make allotment of residential plots in favour of the -petitioners therein whose land had been acquired. Petitioners also preferred OJC Nos. 1216 of 1996 for the same relief which was disposed of vide Judgment and Order Dated 2.9.1996 directing CDA to decide the representation of the petitioners in the light of the Judgment in Laxman Chandra Das (supra). As the grievance of the Petitioners was not redressed, Petitioners filed Contempt Petition Nos. 462 of 1999 which was disposed of vide Judgment and Order Dated 17.5.2001 asking CDA to decide their representation within a stipulated period. Petitioners were allotted a land considering their representation vide letter dated 7.4.2004 for Rs. 3,36,000/ - towards cost of the land. Petitioners' grievance is that the land had been allotted at rate higher than applied in earlier case. Hence this Writ Petition.

(3.) MR . P.K. Mohanty, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the CDA has opposed the petition contending that the land had been allotted to certain other persons under the direction of this Court at some concessional rate but that was long back. The petitioners filed the petition at a much later stage. The cost of the land stood multiplied several times and therefore, the same rate would not be applicable. More so, a very small piece of land of the Petitioners had been acquired and the Petitioners claimed land several times more than their land acquired. Further it is submitted that the Government has not made any scheme for allotment of land to such persons and therefore, the Court is not competent to issue any such direction. The Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.