Back
ORISSA HIGH COURT
PRAKASH CHANDRA DAS – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF ODISHA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks relief for plot allotment. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner's arguments for valid allotment. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. petitioner's continual pursuit of allotment. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. state's arguments against allotment. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. court emphasizes fairness and legitimate expectation. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 6. equal treatment for all applicants is essential. (Para 20 , 21) |
| 7. direction to reconsider premium fixation fairly. (Para 22) |
| 8. court disposes of writ petition with directions. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
ORDER :
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. The Petitioner, Prakash Chandra Das, an Ex-Indian Navy personnel, has approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition seeking allotment of a plot pursuant to an advertisement issued by the General Administration Department. In response thereto, he submitted his application on 13.04.1987 within the stipulated time. A lottery was subsequently conducted on 23.02.1989, and the results were published in the odiya daily newspaper "The Samaj" on 23.09.1989, wherein the Petitioner’s name figured as a successful allottee. However, despite such declaration and notwi
The doctrine of legitimate expectation prohibits the State from denying rights based on uncommunicated procedural deficiencies, ensuring fairness and non-arbitrariness in administrative actions.
The automatic cancellation of government land allotment orders occurs when premium is not deposited within the stipulated time, irrespective of communication issues regarding the order.
Petitioners cannot challenge allotment amounts after acquiescing to the allotment orders and making partial payments, as they were unauthorized occupants without valid claims.
No one can benefit from their own wrongful act, and mis-declaration in securing an allotment renders it improper.
A review petition cannot be treated as an appeal; it is limited to specific grounds such as new evidence or apparent errors, and prior cancellation of registration extinguishes any claim to allotment....
Process of applying the pick and choose policy and making allotments at the whims and fancies of the persons in power continued in the State.
The court affirmed the principle that a prior court order remains enforceable, mandating government compliance in land allotment cases despite subsequent policy changes.
Authority must provide preferential land allotment to disabled persons per applicable legislation; arbitrary cancellations and excessive interests are unjust.
Mandatory prior approval from the Assistant Collector is essential for land allotments under Section 122-C of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, making unauthorized claims invalid.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
