Legitimate expectation arising from prior assurances by a public authority must be honored unless compelling public interest necessitates otherwise.

JUDGMENT :

B.P. Routray, J.

1. Heard Mr. A.P. Bose, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. D. Mohapatra, learned senior counsel for Bhubaneswar Development Authority (BDA) (O.P. No.2), Mr. D. Mohanty, learned counsel for Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation (BMC) (O.P. No.3) and Mr. R. Pradhan, learned ASC for opposite party No.1.

2. The petitioner is the allottee of residential plot No.176 under Kalinga Vihar Housing Scheme (MIG Category). The order of allotment under Annexure-1 was issued on 9^th Augutst, 1995.

3. The case of the petitioner is that there is a surplus patch of land behind his plot measuring 40 feet X 31 feet (1240 square feet) belonging to the BDA (O.P. No.2), adjacent to his land and the same is left unused. Accordingly, the petitioner made an application in the year 2008 vide Annexure-5 series and on consideration of such application of the petitioner opposite party No.2 (BDA) vide their letter dated 23^rd July, 2008 intimated the Petitioner that his request for allotment of the available surplus land measuring 1230 square feet adjacent to the allotted house in Plot No.176 will be considered after finalization of the land cost. In the year 2020 an advertisement dated 30^th December, 2020 was issued by the BDA proposing to dispose of un-allotted cut piece lands available to the allotted house / residential / commercial plots within the housing / plotted development / commercial scheme under the BDA with such specified terms and conditions, inter alia, that the left out patches of land within the buildable area of the scheme cannot be used otherwise or developed as independent residential or commercial plots, which may be considered for allotment to the land owner who has a plot contiguous or adjacent to it, and the additional land can be allotted on payment of price which is equivalent to double of the present Benchmark value. There are many other stipulations as prescribed under the said advertisement at Annexure-3 including such other criteria to be decided by the authority.

4. It is submitted by Mr. Bose, learned counsel for the Petitioner that admittedly his application for consideration of allotment of said additional land adjacent to his residential plot No.176 is still vacant and left unused by the authority, which is in possession of the Petitioner since the date of allotment of his land in Plot No.176. According to Mr. Bose, after issuance of the letter dated 23^rd July 2008 by opposite party No.2 to consider his case upon finalization of land cost for allotting the surplus land in his favor give rise to an expectation legitimate on his part for getting such additional land in his favor. It is also submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that BDA has allotted other additional patch of lands on payment of consideration by some of the plot owners, viz. Plot No.169 & 178.

5. Mr. Mohapatra, learned senior counsel for BDA submits that the decision to allot such an additional lands pursuant to the advertisement under Annexure-3 is to be taken by the authority yet, subject to such terms and conditions prescribed in Annexure-3 and such other conditions to be fulfilled as per the decision of the authorities. Mr. Mohapatra further submits that the petitioner is a sheer encroacher of the additional land adjacent to his allotted plot and he has constructed a boundary wall around the same. After issuance of the advertisement under Annexure-3 prescribing the norms for allotment of such additional lands, the letter issued by BDA on 23^rd July 2008 has become redundant since in any case the surplus land is required to be allotted upon satisfaction of the prescribed terms and conditions as per Annexure-3. He further submits that the authority has not taken