A demolition order is unsustainable if issued without affording the affected party a proper opportunity of hearing, violating natural justice principles.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.

1. The petitioner in the present Writ Petition assails the order of demolition passed by the Rourkela Development Authority vide letter No.2227 dated 02.08.2019, asserting that it was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:

2. Succinctly put, the facts of the case are as follows:

(i) The petitioner purchased a piece of land measuring Ac. 0.122 decimals, appertaining to Plot No. 184 under Khata No. 32, from Bankim Chandra Mohanty and Subrat Mohanty vide Registered Sale Deed No. 370 dated 06.04.2004.

(ii) After purchase of the said land, the petitioner applied for mutation before the Tahasildar, Rourkela, which was registered as Mutation Case No. 345 of 2004. The land was mutated in favour of the petitioner and the Record of Rights was issued accordingly.

(iii) For the purpose of his business, the petitioner submitted a building plan before the Rourkela Development Authority, after depositing the requisite scrutiny fees amounting to Rs. 16,575/- on 18.05.2012.

(iv) Thereafter, the petitioner commenced construction over the said land and raised a G+3 storied structure, which remains incomplete.

(v) On 26.07.2019, the petitioner received a show cause notice issued by the Rourkela Development Authority under Section 91(1) of the Odisha Development Authorities Act, 1982, fixing the date of hearing on 30.07.2019.

(vi) Upon enquiry, the petitioner came to know that an earlier show cause notice dated 20.06.2019 had also been issued by the authorities. According to the petitioner, the said notice dated 20.06.2019 was never received by him, and consequently, he was unable to submit any reply thereto.

(vii) The petitioner appeared before the office of the Rourkela Development Authority on 30.07.2019 along with his reply to the show cause notice. However, on the said date, the authorities did not accept the reply, nor was any opportunity of hearing afforded to the petitioner. Thereafter, on the same date, i.e., 30.07.2019, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply through registered post with acknowledgment due. In the said reply, the petitioner expressed his intention to regularise the construction in accordance with the applicable Building Regulations or under the Amnesty Scheme then in force.

(viii) Subsequent thereto, the petitioner received a letter dated 02.08.2019 communicating the operative portion of the order dated 30.07.2019 passed in Misc. Case No. 128 of 2004, wherein the petitioner was shown as absent on call and directions were issued for demolition and removal of the alleged unauthorised deviations.

(ix) Aggrieved by the order dated 30.07.2019 and the consequential communication dated 02.08.2019, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions.

(i) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had purchased the land in question through a registered sale deed dated 06.04.2004, and that the land was duly mutated in his favour.

(ii) It was further submitted that the petitioner had submitted a building plan before the Rourkela Development Authority after depositing the requisite scrutiny fees on 18.05.2012, but no decision taken on either approving or rejecting the said plan was ever communicated. In the absence of any such communication, the petitioner commenced construction and raised a G+3 storied building, which remains incomplete.

(iii) It was submitted that the petitioner thereafter received a show cause notice dated 26.07.2019 issued