The doctrine of legitimate expectation obligates authorities to consider past practices and continuous possession when making allotments, even if no enforceable right exists.

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.167 under Kalinga Vihar Housing Scheme (MIG Category). The order of allotment was issued on 24^th January, 2004.

3. The case of the petitioner is that there is a surplus patch of land behind his plot measuring 40 feet X 55 feet (2200 Sq. Feet) belonging to BDA (O.P. No.2), adjacent to his land and the same is left unused. Accordingly the petitioner made an application in the year 2004 vide Annexure-6 series and subsequent thereto on different dates. 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. Pursuant to the advertisement at Annexure-3, the petitioner made an application at Annexure-4 series for allotment of the additional adjacent land measuring 40 feet x 55 feet along with depositing the processing fee of Rs.5000/-.

4. It is submitted by Mr. Bose, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner that, admittedly his application for consideration of allotment of the said additional land contiguous to his residential plot No.167 is still vacant and left un-used by the authority, which is in possession of the petitioner since the date of allotment of his land in Plot No.167. According to Mr. Bose, by keeping pending his application for allotment of the additional land since 2021 along with acceptance of the processing fee deposited by the petitioner, and being the owner of the contiguous plot, the petitioner has an expectation legitimate on his part for getting such addition land in his favour. It is also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that BDA has allotted such addition patch of lands on payment of price by some of the plot owners, viz., Plot No.169 and 178.

5. Mr. Mohapatra, learned senior counsel for BDA submits that the decision to allot such additional lands pursuant to the advertisement under Annexure-3 is yet to be taken by the authority subject to such terms and conditions prescribed in Annexure-3 and such other conditions to be fulfilled as per the decision of the authority. Mr. Mohapatra further submits that the petitioner is a sheer encroacher of the additional land adjacent to his allotted land who has constructed a boundary wall around the same and now by virtue of his application as per Annexure-4 series the petitioner is claiming right for allotment of such additional land in his favour. According to Mr. Mohapatra, when the authority has not yet taken the decision regarding allotment of such additional lands to the contiguous land owners within the housing scheme area, no right can sa