Back
2022 Supreme(Ori) 387
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
S. Muralidhar, R.K. Pattanaik, JJ.
Sanjay Kumar Jena - Petitioner
Versus
State of Odisha and Others - Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 14809 of 2013
Decided On : 01-08-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Srinivas Mohanty, Advocate
For the Opposite Party :Mr. Debakanta Mohanty Addl. Govt. Advocate Mr. Dayananda Mohapatra Advocate, Mr. S.P. Panda, Advocate, Mr. K.K. Rout, Advocate Mr. T.K. Nayak, Advocate For Intervener
Satisfaction with the actions taken by the concerned parties and the regularization of construction under the one-time regularization scheme.
Headnote:
Public Interest Litigation - Allegation of unauthorized allotment and construction - CDA's auction process and allotment - Excess land allotment - Deviation from approved building plan - Vigilance inquiry - Regularization of construction - Court's satisfaction with the status quo
Fact of the Case:
The petition was filed as Public Interest Litigation seeking cancellation of a public auction for the development of a modern market complex. Allegations included unauthorized allotment and construction by the CDA and Opposite Party No.4.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the allegations of unauthorized construction and allotment were not substantiated. The Court was satisfied with the actions taken by the CDA and Opposite Party No.4, including the regularization of the construction.
Issues: Allegations of unauthorized allotment and construction, deviation from approved building plan, and the need for further directions from the Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court was satisfied with the actions taken by the CDA and Opposite Party No.4, including the regularization of the construction, and therefore disposed of the writ petition.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
S. Muralidhar, J.
1. The present petition was filed on 3rd July, 2013 as Public Interest Litigation seeking cancellation of the public auction held in 2010 for development of a modern market complex at the entrance of Mahanadi Vihar on PPP mode. The allegation was that the allotment had been made in favour of Opposite Party No.4 in violation of the settled guidelines of the Government as also the Cuttack Development Authority (CDA). The further allegation was that CDA had unauthorizedly handed over excess land to Opposite Party No.4 which had raised unauthorized construction on the plot in question.
2. Notice was directed to issue in the present petition on 16th July, 2013. On 17th September, 2013 a reply was filed on behalf of CDA, in which inter alia it was stated as under:
(i) Initially a meeting was held by the CDA only on 19th January, 2010 for development of a Modern Market Complex (MMC) in PPP mode and an agency was selected as transaction advisor. However, at the subsequent meeting on 9th March, 2010 since no substantial response had been received from the advisor and since it was felt that the construction of MMC in PPP mode will take more time, it was decided to lease out the plot with a condition to develop the Miniplex and Shopping Complex on the plot. Pursuant thereto, a notice was published in the local daily newspapers as well as in the Times of India editions of New Delhi, Mumbai and Kolkata.
(ii) While in the draft notice there was a requirement of deposit of Rs.20 lakhs by a participant towards participation fees, no such conditionality was provided in final version of the advertisement. The details and copies of the documents were made available on the website of CDA from 11th to 30th October, 2010. In terms of the auction notice, bidders were to purchase the documents on payment of Rs.10,000/-and 4% VAT through demand draft. They were also to pay refundable participation fees of 10% on the total deposit as quoted by them.
(iii) Four bids were received which include the bid of Opposite Party No.4. They also deposited the respective participation fees. Two of the bidders i.e. Opposite Party No.4 and one other were found eligible. Since Opposite Party No.4 quoted the highest amount of Rs.1314 per sq. ft. the allotment was made in its favour.
(iv) On 8th November, 2010 the CDA issued an allotment letter in favour of Opposite Party no.4. Although the allotment was made of 1948 sq.ft. it was found that the plot actually measured 10149.071 sq.ft. There was an excess of 601.071 sq.ft. Subsequently, the file was processed for allotment of the extra area and Opposite Party No. 4 was asked to deposit Rs.14,60,889/-which has since been deposited by Opposite Party No.4.
3. In an order dated 18th September, 2014 the Court noted the allegation of the Petitioner that Opposite Party No.4 was “in connivance” with CDA and raising construction on the land. The Court then directed “in view of the nature of allegation made, we direct the CDA to cause an inquiry into the matter and in case the allegation of illegal construction by the Opposite Party No.4 M/s. SGBL (India) Ltd. is found to be true, to take necessary action to prevent the same.”
4. On 23rd December, 2014 a complete copy of the petition was asked to be handed over to the Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department. Thereafter, the matter did not come up for hearing till 5th April, 2019 when learned counsel for the Petitioner sought one adjournment. On 13th May, 2019 the Court reproduced the order dated 18th September, 2014 and directed CDA to file an appropriate affidavit as to the action taken by it. One more opportunity was granted for the CDA to comply with the above order on 22nd July, 2019.
5. In the meanwhile, on 29th January, 2015 Opposite Party No.4 filed a counter affidavit inter alia pointing out that the writ petition suffers from delay and laches since the land in question has been allotted on 8th November, 2010 in favour of Opposite Party No.4 where
