Allowed

Prasanta Kumar Behera v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC9 Sept 2021WP(C)/23016/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought writ directions to force the Cuttack Development Authority (CDA) to issue transfer forms for his allotted plot. The Court held that requiring a house to be built before transfer is unreasonable in an undeveloped sector due to infrastructural delays, and directed the CDA to process the transfer within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to be supplied transfer application form; CDA to process third-party transfer of landed purchase within three weeks of order production.

Prasanta Kumar Behera Vs State of Odisha — Property and Title | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.23016 of 2021

¶3

Sri Prasanta Kumar Behera …… Petitioner Mr. Anjan Kumar Biswal, Adv.

¶4

-versus-

¶5

State of Odisha & Others

¶6

…… Opposite Parties Mr. S.S. Kanungo, AGA

¶7

Order No.

¶8

¶9

CORAM:
JUSTICE C.R. DASH
ORDER
09.09.2021
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode).

¶10

Heard Mr. Anjan Kumar Biswal, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the Opposite Party No.1 and Mr. Dayananda Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties 2 to 4- Cuttack Development Authority.

¶11

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.13-2C/344 (R/C) in

¶12

¶13

Sectior-13 of Bidanasi Project Area and complete the formalities of transfer of allotment within a stipulated period.

¶14

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-4 on the ground that, the transfer of Plot No.132C/344 (R/C) in Sector-13 will be considered after construction of building on the above plot.

¶15

The sum and substance of the defence plea is that Government of Odisha, Revenue and Disaster Management Department vide order No.RDM-LRGEA-CTC-0014 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

¶16

¶17

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 lease-cum-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.

¶18

It is, therefore, argued by Mr. Dayananda 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.

¶19

It is brought to the notice of this Court that the plot in question was initially allotted through lottery vide allotment No.4683 dated 26.02.2007 in favour of petitioner. Though allotment has been made on 26.02.2007 in favour petitioner and more than fourteen 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

¶20

¶21

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.

¶22

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 such allotted plot. Consequently, if a person has been allotted a plot for thirteen 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.

¶23

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

¶24

¶25

subsequent purchaser should have built a house on the plot while applying for sale.

¶26

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

¶27

this case.

¶28

With such observations, this writ petition is disposed
of.
12. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per
rules.
13. A free copy of this order be handed over to Mr.
Dayananda Mohapatra, learned counsel for the C.D.A. for
early compliance.

¶29

…………………………. (C.R. Dash) JUDGE

¶30

Subha

Prasanta Kumar Behera v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prasanta Kumar Behera 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satyabati Singh Vs Balaram Gonda

Jharana Panda Vs State of Odisha

Tirmila Rohidas Vs State of Odisha

Satyaranjan Naik Vs the General Manager,(H.a.), Nalco

Dhirendra Swain Vs State of Odisha

Dambarudhar Sethi Vs State of Odisha