Back
2021 Supreme(Ori) 85
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
B.R. Sarangi, J.
Manoranjan Das Mohapatra - Appellants
Vs.
State of Odisha and Ors. - Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 31182 of 2020
Decided On : 13-01-2021
For the Respondents:A.K. Mishra, Addl. Govt. Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the principle of estoppel applies, and the petitioner's claim cannot sustain in the eye of law.
Headnote:
Estoppel - Housing Project - - [Annexure-1, B.L. Sreedhar v. K.M. Munireddy, (2003) 2 SCC 355, Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. Union of India, (1979) 2 SCC 529] - The court held that the advertisement clearly stipulated that the plot would be allotted on 'First come first serve' basis. Therefore, the petitioner's claim that he is entitled to get the plot after the retention of his money for a period of six years cannot sustain in the eye of law. The entire action is hit by the principle of estoppel. The court also mentioned the legal principles of estoppel from B.L. Sreedhar v. K.M. Munireddy and Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. Union of India, emphasizing that estoppel can arise only if a party has altered his position on the faith of a representation or promise made by another.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an advocate, filed a writ petition seeking to declare the impugned proceeding as illegal and arbitrary and to allot a plot in his favor. The petitioner had applied for a plot in a housing project but did not receive any communication regarding the allotment. After several legal proceedings, the petitioner approached the court seeking relief.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's claim to be entitled to the plot after the retention of his money for a period of six years cannot sustain in the eye of law. The court also held that the petitioner has an alternative remedy to approach the appropriate forum claiming interest on the booking money.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to the plot after the retention of his money for a period of six years and whether the actions of the housing corporation were arbitrary and contrary to the law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the principle of estoppel, emphasizing that the petitioner's claim cannot sustain in the eye of law. The court also highlighted the legal principles of estoppel from previous cases to support its decision.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of, and the court did not interfere with the order impugned by the petitioner. However, the petitioner was left open to pursue his remedy before the appropriate forum claiming interest on the booking money, if desired.
JUDGMENT :
B.R. Sarangi, J.
1. Dr. B.R. Sarangi, J. The petitioner, who is an advocate by occupation, has filed this writ petition in person seeking to declare the impugned proceeding vide memo no. 4046 dated 04.05.2020 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, and consequentially issue direction to opposite party no. 3 to allot a plot in favour of him either in the same project or in any other similar housing project under the control and management of the opposite party-Odisha Co-operative Housing Corporation Ltd., Bhubaneswar.
2. The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that opposite party no. 3-Managing Director of opposite party no. 2-Odisha Co-operative Housing Corporation Ltd. issued an advertisement in daily newspaper "The Samaja" on 01.01.2013 inviting applications for sale of 18 number of vacant plots of different sizes (1000-4000 sq. ft.) at the rate of Rs. 160/- per sq. ft. at Kalinga Vihar Housing Project, Puri, Odisha. The advertisement specified that the applicants need to apply in plain papers indicating their choice of plot with booking amount of Rs. 50,000/- and the mode of allotment would be on "First come first serve" basis and the deposit would be received in shape of Demand Draft/Bankers cheque issued in favour of "Odisha Co-operative Housing Corporation Ltd." payable at Bhubaneswar. The Managing Director, Odisha Co-operative Housing Corporation Ltd. reserved the right to accept or reject any application submitted without assigning any reasons whatsoever.
2.1. Pursuant to such advertisement, the petitioner submitted his application along with demand draft of Rs. 50,000/- bearing demand draft no. 132819 dated 01.01.2013 drawn on Syndicate Bank in favour of opposite party no. 3, which was duly received by him. After receipt of his application along with requisite fees, the petitioner did not receive any communication from opposite party no. 3 with regard to his selection or rejection of allotment of plot. The petitioner waited from 2013 to 2016 with a hope that the plot would be allotted in his favour and intimation would be given to him. Opposite party no. 3 neither allotted the plot nor intimated the petitioner regarding allotment of the plot. Therefore, the petitioner submitted representation on 02.01.2014 to opposite party no. 3 with regard to consideration of his application dated 01.01.2013, but no reply was forthcoming from opposite party no. 3. Consequentially, against inaction of opposite party no. 3, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 2546 of 2016, which was disposed of vide order dated 22.02.2016 with a direction to opposite party no. 3 to consider the application and dispose of the representation dated 02.01.2014 of the petitioner within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of the order. Though the said order was communicated, opposite party no. 3 slept over the matter and did not give any intimation to the petitioner. Due to non-compliance of the order dated 22.02.2016 passed in W.P.(C) No. 2546 of 2016, the petitioner filed CONTC No. 249 of 2017 in which upon receipt of notice, opposite party no. 3 issued a letter and a cheque of Rs. 50,000/- in favour of the petitioner dated 16.12.2019 stating that the earnest money received was returned herewith as the petitioner was not provided with the land applied for. Hence this writ petition.
3. Mr. M.D. Mohapatra, the petitioner appearing in person contended that he had deposited the earnest money of Rs. 50,000/- in shape of demand draft pursuant to the advertisement issued on 01.01.2013, but opposite party no. 3, having kept quiet for a period of six years, returned the aforesaid earnest money without any interest and without allotting any plot in his favour. He further contended that because of filing of W.P.(C) No. 2546 of 2016 and subsequently CONTC No. 249 of 2017, opposite party no. 3 returned his earnest money of Rs. 50,000/- in order to get rid of the charge of contempt. Thereby, opposite party no. 3 has acted a
