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.174 under Kalinga Vihar Housing Scheme (MIG Category). The order of allotment under Annexure-1 was issued on 27th December 1995.

3. The case of the petitioner is that there is a surplus patch of land behind his plot measuring 40 feet X 35 feet (1400 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 on 19th June 2005 (Annexure-4) to allot said surplus land in his favour.

4. In the year 2020 an advertisement dated 30th 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.

5. It is submitted by Mr. Bose, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner that, the application of the petitioner for allotment of the surplus patch of land dated 19th June, 2005 is still pending consideration before opposite party no.2 and in the meantime the advertisement dated 30th December 2020 under Annexure-3 has been issued. It is true that after issuance of the advertisement under Annexure-3 the petitioner has not made any application for allotment of the surplus land in his occupation adjoining to his plot to the authority till date. But this court while considering cases of some other plot owners in different writ petitions, viz., WP(C) No.19522 of 2023, WP(C) No.19526 of 2023, WP(C) No.19532 of 2023, WP(C) No.19531 of 2023 and other writ petitions, where those respective petitioners had applied for grant of the surplus land in their favour pursuant to issuance of the advertisement under Annexure-3, has passed certain directions to take decision in respect of those petitioners regarding allotment of such surplus lands.

6. Mr. Bose further submits that though the petitioner has not applied for allotment of the surplus land in his favour but the fact remains undisputed that said surplus patch of land measuring 40 feet X 35 feet is in occupation of the petitioner till date from the date of his allotment of plot No.174. Accordingly he may be permitted to apply to the authority concerned pursuant to the advertisement at Annexure-3 and in such event the case of the petitioner may also be considered by the authority appropriately.

7. Mr. Mohapatra, learned senior counsel for BDA submits that the decision to allot such 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 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 taken the decision yet,