The court upheld the necessity of fair hearing in administrative decisions regarding construction regularization, mandating compliance with procedural principles under natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

1. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the decision of opposite party No.1 under Annexure-15 in connection with a proceeding in U.C. Appeal No.22 of 2019 initiated under Section 91 (2) of the Odisha Development Authorities Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ODA Act’ ) on the grounds stated therein.

2. As per the pleading on record, the petitioner is the proprietor of M/s. Chitraka Earthmovers and Builders and the subject-matter in the dispute relates to Plot No.181, Drawing No.B/150 of Mouza-Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar which was allotted in favour of the proforma opposite party No.12 on the basis of a lease deed dated 5^th January, 1990. According to the petitioner, after the lease agreement under Annexure-1, subsequent lease arrived on 16^th December, 1992 executed by the Director of Estate General, Government of Odisha. It is further stated that after the above paraphernalia, a conveyance deed dated 21^st December, 2001 was executed by the GA Department, Government of Odisha in favour of the proforma opposite party No.12 later to the conversion of leasehold land to freehold and accordingly, said opposite party became the owner of the land, who thereafter obtained Building Plan Approval from the Bhubaneswar Development Authority (BDA) on 29th December, 2001 with permission for construction over Plot No.181. It is further pleaded that after execution of the Building Development Agreement, proforma opposite party No.12 executed a Power of Attorney (PoA) in his favour for construction of building in the name and style, ‘Kananshri Villa’ and on completion of such construction and by virtue of the said PoA, the petitioner sold the flats to different purchasers including opposite party Nos.7 to 11 as per the sale deeds executed in different point of time.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that opposite party Nos.7 to 11 lodged a written complaint before opposite party No.5 on 20th July, 2015 and 2^nd November, 2016 alleging deviation and unauthorized construction in the building, whereafter, opposite party No.2 initiated a proceeding in UAP Case No.217 of 2017 and by order dated 6^th April, 2018 directed demolition of the alleged construction within seven days from the date of service of the said order i.e. Annexure-3. It is claimed that the petitioner was never served with any notice in UAP Case No.217 of 2017 at any time before passing of the final order of demolition. It is pleaded that the BMC on 22nd July, 2019 issued notice under Annexure-4 to the petitioner and proforma opposite party No.12 regarding eviction and demolition of unauthorized construction pursuant to the order dated 28^th March, 2019 passed in W.P.(C) No. 6865 of 2019. As stated further, without any such notice and hearing in UAP Case No.217 of 2017 in the presence of the petitioner or proforma opposite party No.12, such eviction was directed. It is also claimed that there was no any occasion for the petitioner or for that matter, proforma opposite party No.12 with a hearing at the time of disposal of W.P.(C) No.6865 of 2019. The petitioner would claim that against the order under Annexure-3, appeal was filed on 25th July, 2019 before opposite party No.1 for a decision in accordance with law by stating the fact regarding regularization of unauthorized construction applied under Sarba Kshyama Scheme with required amount deposited on 30^th June, 2008 in the shape of a Bank Draft dated 27^th June, 2008. It is alleged that the said plea for regularization of unauthorized construction has not been attended to or any such decision thereon was never intimated to the petitioner, which is revealed from the relevant extracts of the Note Sheets as at Annexure-11 obtaine