The writ petition was held infructuous as the relief sought had already been granted in a previously disposed analogous case (W.P.(C) No. 5283 of 2004). Consequently, the application was disposed of. The matter regarding the enhancement of price is pending adjudication as per a separate application filed by the petitioner.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.(C) No. 13530 of 2004
3. 03.07.2019
Heard Mr. J. Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. J. Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner states that this matter, being analogous to W.P.(C) No. 5283 of 2004 disposed of on 15.05.2007, may be disposed of in the light of the order passed in the said case.
On 15.05.2007, a Division Bench of this Court disposed of W.P.(C) No. 5283 of 2004 ( Susanta Kumar Mohapatra v. State of Orissa ) by passing orders to the following effect:-
“It appears that the petitioner had applied for allotment of plots pursuant to the notice of allotment and deposited the requisites amount. The allotment was made on the basis of first-cum-first serve basis. However, learned counsel for the petitioner wants that in future, the case of the petitioner for allotment may be considered and this writ petition may not be a bar for considering the future allotment .
In Paragraph-10 of the counter affidavit filed by the Orissa State Housing Board in W.P.(C) No.4360 of 2004, it has been stated that the writ petitioners will be allotted plots after following the procedure of allotment as soon as the matter is disposed of by this Court.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, all these writ petitioners are disposed of with a direction to the opposite parties to consider the future aspect of the allotment in case the petitioner so apply and the allotment shall not be denied because of the fact that these case have been filed by the petitioner.
Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.”
Pursuant to such order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, the lands have been allotted but with enhanced price. So far as enhancement of price is concerned the petitioner has filed separate application before the authority concerned which is still pending for adjudication.
Since the relief sought in the present writ application has already been granted, the writ application has become infructuous and is disposed of as such. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.
......……………………… Dr. B.R. Sarangi, J.
Ajaya
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Susanta Kumar Mohapatra v. State of OrissaRelied on¶5
W.P.(C) No. 5283 of 2004
Petitioner
Respondent
Dr. B.R. Sarangi
Ajaya
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
