The B.D.A. is estopped from demanding additional payment for excess land after 22 years of lawful possession of the property by the petitioner, which violates past agreements and legal principles.

JUDGMENT :

A.C. Behera, J.

1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing letter dated 30.07.2022(Annexure-10) and letter dated 04.11.2022(Annexure- 15) issued by the Allotment Officer, Bhubaneswar Development Authority(Opposite Party No.3) and to direct the Opposite Parties to execute the lease-cum-sale deed in respect of the allotted HIG Duplex Core House in favour of the petitioner.

2. The case of the petitioner against the Opposite Parties is that, the petitioner is a retired employee of State Bank of India. The Bhubaneswar Development Authority(Opposite Party No.2, in short the “B.D.A.”) started construction of thirty numbers of HIG Duplex Core Houses, sixty- five numbers of HIG Core houses and seventy-two numbers of MIG Core Houses at Pokhariput and accordingly, B.D.A. floated advertisements for sale of those Core Houses at Pokhariput, which are closed to Airport area inviting applications fixing the cost of each Core House as Rs.9.45 lakhs. The petitioner applied for one HIG Duplex Core house and as per requirement, he(petitioner) initially deposited Rs.1,02,000/-(rupees one lakh two thousand) towards processing fees, which was non-refundable in nature. Thereafter, B.D.A. as per letter dated 20.05.1998 intimated petitioner that, he(petitioner) has been provisionally allotted with a HIG Duplex Core House at Pokhariput and directed him(petitioner) to deposit the rest amount of the said HIG Duplex Core House within three months and to furnish xerox copy of the challan deposit thereof for the proof of such deposit. Accordingly, the petitioner deposited the rest amount, i.e., Rs.8,43, 000/- towards the cost of the HIG Duplex Core House. After such deposit, B.D.A.(Opposite Party No.2) called all the applicants including the petitioner, those were issued with allotment letter and accordingly a lottery was drawn on the date fixed for distribution of specific HIG Duplex Core Houses. In such lottery, the petitioner got HIG Duplex Core House No.29. At that time, some other HIG Duplex Core Houses were not allotted to anybody. One of such non-allotted HIG Duplex Core House was House No.21, which is situated at the corner of the cluster having its road in two sides and houses in other two sides. As, the HIG Duplex Core House No.21 was not allotted to anybody, for which, the petitioner interested to take that HIG Duplex Core House No.21 instead of HIG Duplex Core House 29, to which, B.D.A. agreed. As, the HIG Duplex Core House No.21 is at the corner having roads in its two sides, for which, the Opposite Party No.2 demanded extra cost, i.e., Rs.15,000/-(rupees fifteen thousand) for allotment of the same in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner deposited such extra cost, i.e., Rs.15,000/-(rupees fifteen thousand) and the Opposite Party No.1 allotted that HIG Duplex Core House No.21 in favour of the petitioner cancelling the allotment of HIG Duplex Core House No.29 and delivered possession of the said HIG Duplex Core House No.21 to the petitioner on 29.11.2000 through possession note.

After taking possession of HIG Duplex Core House No.21, it was noticed by the petitioner that, the quality of the constructions of that HIG Duplex Core House No.21 is not up to the standard, wherein electricity and water supply were not provided. So, the petitioner filed a consumer case vide C.D. Case No.174 of 2002 before the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Odisha against the B.D.A.(Opposite Party No.2) claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.5,45,000/-(rupees five lakhs forty-five thousand), to which, the B.D.A. contested. After hearing from both t