Partly allowed

Abhaya Kumar Bhuyan v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC25 Jun 2020WP(C)/9278/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition seeking direction for a third-party transfer of an allotted plot, the Court held that the relevant date for calculating the two-year eligibility period is the date of possession, not the lease deed execution date. The Court directed the respondents to issue the form and process the transfer within specified timelines.

What did the court decide?

Direct opposite parties to issue transfer application form within seven days; process third-party transfer application within sixty days.

Abhaya Kumar Bhuyan Vs State of Odisha — Property and Title | Orissa HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.(C) No. 9278 of 2020

¶2

25.06.2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P.C. Panda, learned Additional Government Advocate and Mr. D. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Cuttack Development Authority.

¶3

The petitioner has filed the writ petition for necessary direction to opposite party nos.2, 3 & 4 to process his application for 3^rd party transfer. He was allotted with a plot bearing no. 10-4D/1026 on 07.07.2001. The lease deed was executed between the petitioner and the Cuttack Development Authority on 21.10.2019. The petitioner has already constructed a house over the said plot. The petitioner’s application for issuance of transfer application form has been denied by the Cuttack Development Authority on the ground that two years has not elapsed since the date of execution of lease deed.

¶4

This Court in the case of Sri Pravat Kumar Tripathy vrs. C.D.A. and another (W.P.(C) No. 4902 of 2015 disposed of on 02.02.2016) has ruled that meaning of date of lease-cum-sale of the plot is not actual date when the lease was executed by the authority rather the relevant date is the 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. It is clear that in view of the aforesaid ratio, two years have already elapsed as it is found from the records and from the date of possession.

¶5

¶6

¶7

In that view of the matter, the action of the CDA in not granting a transfer application form to the petitioner is illegal. Hence, the opposite party nos.2 to 4 are directed to give a transfer application form to the petitioner within seven days of receiving notice of this order on deposit of necessary requisite costs.

¶8

The petitioner is at liberty to file an application for 3^rd party transfer before the CDA after obtaining such transfer form. In such case, the opposite party nos.2 to 4 are directed to process the case for recommending 3^rd party transfer of the petitionerleaseholder property within sixty days from the date of his submission of application by the CDA, subject to compliance of conditions as required by the CDA and after verification of double allotment of discretionary quota.

¶9

With such observation, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶10

A free copy of this order be handed over to Sri Mohapatra, learned counsel for CDA for reference.

¶11

………....….…… P.Patnaik, J.

¶12

Abhaya Kumar Bhuyan v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhaya Kumar Bhuyan 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

Akash Chandra Behera Vs State of Odisha

Bibhuti Bhusan Biswas Vs State of Odisha

A.Naidu Vs State of Odisha

Asutosh Ray Vs State of Odisha

Trilochan Mallik Vs Sukanti Mallik

Sambedita Nayak Vs State of Orissa