The court reaffirmed the binding nature of a valid settlement in property disputes, emphasizing that claims of fraud must be substantiated to alter enforceable agreements.

JUDGMENT :

S.S. Mishra, J.

Heard Mr. Ramakanta Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Abhimanyu Parida, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.1.

2. The writ petitioners filed the instant writ petition inter alia making the following prayers:-

“(i) Issue a Rule Nisi calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause as to why a writ of prohibition should not be issued prohibiting them from in any manner dealing with the facts/area allocated to the petitioners as the “Owners Allocation” as per Annexure-1 to 5.

(ii) Issue a further Rule Nisi calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause as to why a writ may not be issued in favour of the petitioners declaring their right/title/interest over their share vide Annexure-2 to 5.

(iii) Further be pleased to direct the Opp. Party no.1 to handover the possession of the Flats under Annexure-5 series as owners‟ allocation.

(iv) Issue a further Rule Nisi calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause as to why the impugned notice dated 26.6.2005 under Annexure-1 shall not be quashed and set aside;

(v) If the Opp. Parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause make the said Rule Nisi absolute and further be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari/prohibition and/or declaration in line with the aforesaid Rule Nisi quashing Annexure-1.”

3. It appears from the record that the writ petitioners are the land owners. They entered into a development agreement with the opposite party No.3, M/s. Sarthak Builders Private Limited for development of the plot. As per the agreement, the petitioners are entitled for 25% of the total built up area as well as 25% of all the saleable space. The developer- opposite party No.3 constructed a seven storied building consisting of eight flats in each floor.

It further appears that the opposite party No.3 so as to execute the undertaking construction as assigned the development agreement, availed loan from the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 and defaulted to liquidate the liability towards the loan. Therefore, the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 initiated a proceeding under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short “SARFAESI” Act). Eventually, notices were issued for taking over the possession of the property in subject. At that stage, the petitioners filed the present writ petition challenging the sale notice dated 26.06.2005 issued by the opposite party No.1-Orissa Rural Housing and Development Corporation Limited on the strength of the development agreement.

4. This Court while entertaining the writ petition on 28.07.2005, issued notice to the opposite parties and while allowing Misc. Case No.9043 of 2005 passed the following order:-

Misc. Case No.9043 of 2005

“The petitioners file an affidavit today in Court indicating therein the flats allotted to them. As an interim measure, let status quo in respect of the following flats, i.e., Ground Floor Flat Nos.7 & 8, First Floor Flat Nos.7 & 8, Second Floor Flat Nos.2, 3 & 4, Third Floor Flat Nos. 2, 3 & 4, Fourth Floor Flat No.7, Fifth Floor Flat No.7, Sixth Floor Flat Nos.7 & 8 and Seventh Floor Flat Nos.7 & 8 in Sarthak Tower be maintained. The flats in question shall not be sold to any other person and the same shall remain under the custody of the Corporation till the next date.”

Taking into consideration the development taken place in between, on 19.11.2009, this Court again modified the interim order by passing the following order:-

“Heard Mr. B.K.Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. S.K.Nayak, learned counsel for the ORHDC-O.P.1, and Mr. B.A.Mohanty, lear