Allowed

Urmila Suhasaria v. Cda,Cuttack

Orissa HC14 Dec 2021WP(C)/21509/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a public interest matter, the petitioner claims the respondent withheld permission for the third-party transfer of a flat. The Court held the petitioner's purchase was fair and single. Directed the authority to perform all formalities and grant transfer approval within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Permission to cause third-party transfer will be granted within three weeks of complying with all formalities required by the CDA.

Urmila Suhasaria Vs Cda,Cuttack — Property and Title | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.21509 of 2015

¶3

(Through hybrid mode)

¶4

Urmila Suhasaria and another

¶5

…. Petitioners

¶6

Mr.P.K.Rath, Advocate

¶7

-versus-

¶8

Cuttack Development Authority and another

¶9

…. Opposite Parties

¶10

Mr. D.Mohapatra, Advocate

¶11

CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA

ORDER

14.12.2021

Order No.

07.

Mr. Rath, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioners. He submits, his clients applied for permission to transfer original allotment of deceased husband of petitioner no.1. This permission is being withheld. Hence, the writ petition.

¶17

Mr. Mohapatra, learned advocate appears on behalf of Cuttack Development Authority (CDA) and draws attention to memo dated 4^th June, 2015 (annexure 1 in the writ petition) for facts in the case being that petitioners are claiming under deceased 3^rd party allottee. He submits with reference to paragraph 5 in the counter that transferor to the 3^rd party allottee was a person, who had obtained multiple allotments in his and his wife’s name. This malpractice was detected by a

¶18

Page 1 of 1

¶19

// 2 //

¶20

task force and several recommendations made. The recommendations are at annexure C/2 in the counter.

¶21

He refers to recommendation in sub-clause (2) of clause 48 to be, inter alia, additional units allotted to ineligible individuals/families should be resumed. In event there is resumption proceeding, culminating in order of resumption of the plot in question, the contingency prevents his clients from giving permission sought for by petitioners.

¶22

Mr. Rath in reply submits, sub-clause (7) under said recommendation clause 48 also says as follows:

¶23

“However, it is suggested that the cancellation may not be done in respect of an allottee getting only one plot/house/flat through fair means and by following the prescribed procedure and provisions for such transfer.”

¶24

He refers to allotment letter dated 3^rd March, 2011 made to deceased husband of petitioner no.1. He submits, clause 2 in the allotment letter says transfer requires previous consent of the authority in writing. This has been applied for and permission unreasonably withheld, purportedly on basis of the recommendations, which, he reiterates, also suggests there may not be cancellation in respect of allottee getting only one plot. He submits further, the 3^rd party allottee got only one plot by 3^rd party allotment dated 3^rd March, 2011, duly issued by CDA. There is no dispute regarding said deceased 3^rd party allottee being allottee in respect of only one plot. Mr. Mohapatra responds, sub-clause (7) refers to allotment made from discretionary quota and, therefore, cannot be made applicable in case of petitioners.

¶25

Page 2 of 4

¶26

// 3 //

¶27

Following from sub-clause (7) in clause 48 is reproduced

¶28

below:

¶29

“There are beneficiaries who got allotment under discretionary quota for a second time after transferring their earlier discretionary quota allotments. The Task Force recommends cancellation of all such prepossession transfers except in the event of death of the allottee, and fixation of accountability against officials who granted permission for such transfers. As regards post-possession transfers, it is recommended that such transfers by discretionary quota allottees and multiple allottees should also be cancelled.”

¶30

It is clear that sub-clause (7) talks about wrongful multiple allotments obtained both under discretionary quota as well as otherwise. Therefore, it is in the context, the suggestion that cancellation may not be done in respect of allottee getting only one plot/house/flat through fair means and following prescribed procedure and provision for such transfer. This is because by no stretch of imagination there can be an allottee of one plot contemplated in the sub-clause, who would fall into either category of having had multiple allotments through discretionary quota or otherwise. The suggestion is in respect of 3^rd party transferees, who obtained the transfer by fair means. Deceased husband of petitioner no.1 appears to be one such transferee. CDA had issued allotment letter dated 3^rd March, 2011 and there is no doubt that the transfer was obtained by fair means, by following prescribed procedures and provisions for it. It is another matter that the transferor not having done so in obtaining multiple plots in his and his wife’s name.

¶31

The writ petition succeeds. Petitioners will approach CDA with copy of this order. On communication, CDA will require petitioners to fulfill all formalities regarding issuance of permission to cause 3^rd party transfer in respect of the plot being subject matter

¶32

Page 3 of 4

¶33

// 4 //

¶34

of said allotment dated 3^rd March, 2011. With compliance of all formalities, permission will be granted within three weeks from communication of this order.

¶35

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶36

(Arindam Sinha)

¶37

Judge

¶38

RKS

¶39

Page 4 of 4

Urmila Suhasaria v. Cda,Cuttack

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Urmila Suhasaria v. Cda,Cuttack

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Soumendra Kumar Panda Vs Snigdha Suhani Kar

Artatrana Mishra Vs Executive Officer

Anukul Chandra Rout Vs Prativa Manjari Sahoo

Ganesh K.Bramha Vs Bpcl and Ors.

Abani Kumar Baag Vs Monalisa Mohanty

Ladu Kishore Sahu Vs Odisha State Road Transport Corporation Ltd.