BHUBANESWAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. RAM DAYAL PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the B. D. A. against the order of the District Forum, Khurda at Bhubaneswar directing them to give delivery of possession to the complainant an area measuring 1100 sq. ft. under plot No. LP-96 situated in Laxmisagar. Housing Project after removing all encroachment thereon and pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.500/- as cost vide order dated 30.3.1998.

(2.) Admittedly complainant paid the entire Salami of Rs.2,550/- including the initial payment of Rs.250/- on 7.4.1976 and the last payment in 1980. Subsequently the registered lease deed of agreement was executed between the Government in G. A. Department and the complainant vide registered lease deed dated 2.5.1984, describing the complainant as a lessee and the State as the lessor. Description of the land was given as LP-96 as per the scheduled bounded on the North by LP-95, South Road, East LP-97, West Government land. A sketch map to scale of the land as per description was also attached to this lease deed. When he went over the land before any formal possession was given he found his plot No. LP-96 had been encroached by adjacent owners of LP-95 as well as LP-97. By letter dated 19.3.1988 he brought this fact to the notice of the Vice-Chairman, B. D. A. The Government also in the G. A. Department on 24.3.1988 wrote to the Secretary of the B. D. A. indicating the encroachment over the land of the complainant by Basanti Patra the lessee of plot No. LP-95. But at the same time directed the Secretary to hand over physical possession of the plot to the complainant and report compliance to the department. It seems after several correspondences between the complainant and the B. D. A. the complainant did not accede to the request of the B. D. A. to take alternative site of the same area at a different place or in the alternative to forgo the area about 97 sq. ft. , that fell short from the entire area allotted to the complainant and take back the proportionate costs of the land. The complainant moved the District Forum for appropriate relief.

(3.) The G. A. Department remained ex parte on the date of hearing though filed a counter admitting the allotment of the land, registration of the lease deed, etc. The O. P. No.1 took the plea that since there was encroachment the complainant was asked to take alternate lands to which he did not agree. They also could not accede to the request of the complainant to make out the shortage of an area from out of the remaining portion of the plot No. LP-96 that was lying vacant since it belonged to the Government.