Bhubaneswar Development Authority vs RAM DAYAL PRASAD

THIS is an appeal by the B.D.A. against the order of the District Forum, Khurda at Bhubaneswar directing them to give delivery of possession to the complainant an area measuring 1100 sq. ft. under plot No. LP-96 situated in Laxmisagar. Housing Project after removing all encroachment thereon and pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 500/- as cost vide order dated 30.3.1998.

ADMITTEDLY complainant paid the entire Salami of Rs. 2,550/- including the initial payment of Rs. 250/- on 7.4.1976 and the last payment in 1980. Subsequently the registered lease deed of agreement was executed between the Government in G.A. Department and the complainant vide registered lease deed dated 2.5.1984, describing the complainant as a lessee and the State as the lessor. Description of the land was given as LP-96 as per the scheduled bounded on the North by LP-95, South Road, East LP-97, West Government land. A sketch map to scale of the land as per description was also attached to this lease deed. When he went over the land before any formal possession was given he found his plot No. LP-96 had been encroached by adjacent owners of LP-95 as well as LP-97. By letter dated 19.3.1988 he brought this fact to the notice of the Vice-Chairman, B.D.A. The Government also in the G.A. Department on 24.3.1988 wrote to the Secretary of the B.D.A. indicating the encroachment over the land of the complainant by Basanti Patra the lessee of plot No. LP-95. But at the same time directed the Secretary to hand over physical possession of the plot to the complainant and report compliance to the department. It seems after several correspondences between the complainant and the B.D.A. the complainant did not accede to the request of the B.D.A. to take alternative site of the same area at a different place or in the alternative to forgo the area about 97 sq. ft., that fell short from the entire area allotted to the complainant and take back the proportionate costs of the land. The complainant moved the District Forum for appropriate relief. The G.A. Department remained ex parte on the date of hearing though filed a counter admitting the allotment of the land, registration of the lease deed, etc. The O.P. No. 1 took the plea that since there was encroachment the complainant was asked to take alternate lands to which he did not agree. They also could not accede to the request of the complainant to make out the shortage of an area from out of the remaining portion of the plot No. LP-96 that was lying vacant since it belonged to the Government.

The District Forum after a lengthy description of the case has held the B.D.A. to be deficient in service.

HEARD Mr. S. Mohanty, the learned Counsel for the appellant and the complainant in person, perused the impugned order and materials on record. The position of stand as on today is like this: Complainant has deposited the entire amount by 1980. Already 23 years have passed. He has not been given delivery of possession of the land in question. The Government seems to have no objection that the complainant should be given the whole of the area obviously by removing encroachment if any by the owner of the plot No. LP-95. In Para 6 of the written version the B.D.A. also stated that basing on the complaint petition of the complainant dated 29.3.1988 a proceeding under Section 91 of the Orissa Development Authority Act against the said Basanti Patra was initiated and the matter was sub judice and the complainant was also attending this case. From the above facts it would be clear that complainant should be given delivery of possession of the whole of his area as mentioned above. This Court is not informed the latest position if the B.D.A. authorities have been able to remove the encroachment in respect of the land over plot No. LP-96 and whether the proceeding for such eviction against the said Basanti Patra has terminated and what is the result.

BE that as it may, we do not find there is any infirmity in the order of the District Forum. But we would like to only modify the same to the extent that complainant has been made to suffer from mental stress and agony for a piece of land for which he has deposited the money and the Government also of the view that the complainant should be given the same area after removing the encroachment by the owner of the adjacent plot No. LP-95. He is thus deprived of the enjoyment of the whole plot. We have no information as to why the B.D.A. was not in a position to remove the encroachment. Therefore we have thought it appropriate to direct the B.D.A. to give possession of the whole plot in case the encroachment has been removed in the meantime. This would be given within 3 months from the date of communication of the order. In case as on today i.e., passing of the order encroachment has not been removed and for some reason or the other the complainant is unable to take over possession of the encroached area. The B.D.A. shall pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards compensation for mental stress and agony to the complainant and also for loss sustained by him since he has been deprived of the enjoyment of the whole of the plot for this. That apart the complainant if he so likes is free to move to the Government for allotting the area from out of the place available from Western side of the Government land which Government may consider sympathetically. With this modification the appeal is dismissed. No cost. Appeal dismissed.