Allowed

Minati Mallick v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC26 Nov 2019WP(C)/14870/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner sought a transfer application form for a plot in the Bidanasi Project Area. The court observed inordinate delays in infrastructure development by the Cuttack Development Authority. Directing that the condition of house construction should not be insisted upon for this sector, the court allowed the petition and ordered the authority to supply the form and process

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent to supply the transfer application form and process the 3rd party transfer within three weeks without insisting on the condition of house construction.

Minati Mallick Vs State of Odisha — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2019)

¶1

W.P.(C) No.14870 of 2019

¶2

26.11.2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the opposite party no.1 and Mr. D. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 and 3-Cuttack Development Authority.

¶3

In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed to issue writ in the nature of certiorari/ mandamus directing the Cuttack Development Authority to issue transfer application form in his favour in respect of Plot No.134D/1432 in Sectior-13 of Bidanasi Project Area and complete the formalities of transfer of allotment within a stipulated period.

¶4

It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though this Court in the case of Pravat Kumar Tripathy –vrs.- C.D.A. and Another (in W.P.(C) No.4902 of 2015) disposed of on 02.02.2015 and in the case of Krushna Chandra Mohanty –vr.- State of Orissa (in W.P.(C) No.15398 of 2016) disposed of on 14.09.2016 has held that meaning of date of lease-cum-sale of the plot is not the actual date when the lease was executed by the authority; rather, the relevant date of handing over possession of the piece of land to the allottee, who in pursuance of the terms and conditions deposited the money and allotment was made in his favour, the Cuttack Development Authorities are not granting permission for transfer of allotment of the aforesaid plot vide Annexure-1

¶5

¶6

on the ground that, the transfer of Plot No.13-4D/1432 in Sector-13 will be considered after construction of building on the above plot.

¶7

The sum and substance of the defence plea is that Government of Odisha, Revenue and Disaster Management Department vide order No.RDM-LRGEA-CTC0014 2015 dated 21.11.2015 delegated the powers to accord permission for transfer of leased out Government land allotted by CDA, Cuttack to an individual allottee to another person by way of sale, gift or mortgage. Ultimately, transfer of land vested with Revenue Divisional Commissioner (Central Division), Cuttack. It has been stipulated by the Government of Odisha that in case of plots of land with houses built thereon taken on leasecum-sale basis from the CDA, the Revenue Divisional Commissioner (Central Division), Cuttack shall accord permission for transfer of the said land and house on behalf of the Governor of Odisha, provided that two years’ time has expired from the date of lease-cum-sale of the plot in question along with the house built thereon.

¶8

It is, therefore, argued by Mr. D. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the C.D.A. that since the petitioner has not constructed house on the said plot after purchased and the lease-cum-sale deed having not been executed, the permission for transfer of the land cannot be granted.

¶9

¶10

It is brought to the notice of this Court that the plot in question was initially allotted through lottery vide allotment No.11570 dated 26.04.2008 in favour of petitioner. Though allotment has been made on 26.04.2008 in favour petitioner and more than eleven years have elapsed in the meantime, as yet, the infrastructural development in Sector13 of Bidanasi Project Area has not been completed. It is in fact not disputed by the learned counsel for the C.D.A. that there has been inordinate delay in developing the area of Sector-13 of Bidanasi Project Area for several problems. So, decision taken by the Government of Odisha that an original allottee or a person who has purchased a land from the original allottee can only sale the plot and house built thereon to the 3rd party with the permission of the R.D.C., Cuttack appears to be unreasonable. The State Government should be a model principal and when the C.D.A. has failed to develop the area in question within a reasonable time frame, it would be unreasonable on the part of the State Government to impose such conditions. Now it is submitted that the land is being developed for building houses and people can start building houses.

¶11

Be that as it may, unless the residential area is fully developed with proper infrastructures, roads, electricity connection, drainage etc., it will be unreasonable to expect the allottees or purchasers to build a house on

¶12

¶13

such allotted plot. Consequently, if a person has been allotted a plot for eleven years, his money is blocked and now he is facing grave problem and he is unable to sale the property to meet his legal necessity, then it will be unjust to him.

¶14

In that view of the matter, I think as far as it relates to sale of the plot “with houses built thereon”, in Sector-13 of the Bidanasi Project Area, residential development should not be made applicable. In other words, this Court directs that the C.D.A. and the concerned Revenue Authorities, while considering the case of transfer of a plot in Sector-13 shall not insist upon the condition that the original allottee or subsequent purchaser should have built a house on the plot while applying for sale.

¶15

Hence, I allow this writ petition directing the opposite party no.3 to supply the copy of the transfer application form to the petitioner and then process the case for recommending the 3rd party transfer of the purchased land of the petitioner within a period of three weeks of production of certified copy of this order. It is not disputed in this case that there is no double allotment or allotments through discretionary quota in this case.

¶16

With such observations, this writ petition is disposed of.

¶17

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

¶18

¶19

A free copy of this order be handed over to Mr. D. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the C.D.A. for early compliance.

¶20

……………………….

¶21

C.R. Dash, J.

¶22

Murmu

Minati Mallick v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Minati Mallick v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Banamali Naik Vs State of Odisha

Maa Salanri Shg Vs State of Orissa

Jagat Jyoti Pattanaik Vs Sub Collector, Cuttack

Anusaya Khadanga Vs Branch Manager,Punjab National Bank,Nayagarh

M/S.Navnirman Rural Electrifier Vs Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.

Prabodh Kumar Samantaray Vs Odisha Chief Information Commissioner