Moolchand Gupta vs State of Odisha And Another

Arindam Sinha, J

Mr. Mishra, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner, who had applied for allotment of plot. He submits, the allotment stood canceled by impugned office order dated 16th September, 2008. He submits, circumstances beyond control of his client caused him to default on making the balance payment. He relies on order dated 11th November, 2014 made by coordinate Bench in W.P.(C) no.7202 of 2009 (Indramani Jena v. State of Orissa and others), from where following is extracted and reproduced below:

"Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party nos.2 and 3 filing a counter, submits that there is no illegality in passing the cancellation order as the petitioner became chronic defaulter and applying Rule 52 read with Rule 54 of the Orissa Development Authority Rules, 1983, they have a right to re-allot the land in favour of the original allottee subject to clear claiming the letting value. The market value of the property as has been fixed by the authority. Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party nos.2 and 3 further submits that taking a sympathetic view, they have calculated the outstanding including the interest at Rs.3,98,816/- (rupees three lakhs ninety-eight thousand eight hundred sixteen) as on 31.08.2004 and they have no objection, if the petitioner clear this amount.

Considering the submissions made by the parties and taking into consideration that the petitioner had already paid a substantial amount out of agreed amount and he is going to loose a very valuable right, I fix the outstanding including interest at Rs.3,50,000/- (rupees three lakhs fifty thousand) as a whole and I direct the petitioner to clear this amount in one payment within a period of one month from the date of this order."

Mr. Mohapatra, learned advocate appears on behalf of Cuttack Development Authority (CDA). He submits, he does not have instructions to make similar concession in this case. It has been the experience of his client that having caused default and in this case major part of the consideration was not paid unlike in the case of

Indramani Jena (supra), any concession given by his client led to speculation by the recipient of the concession, to thereafter sell at market value. Mr. Mishra responds, even if his client wants to sell, it has to be with permission of CDA.

It is clear from order dated 11th November, 2014 that it was passed on concession. As such it cannot bind CDA. Petitioner is given liberty to approach CDA for obtaining reconsideration of the cancellation, either by payment of interest as may be demanded or payment of present allotment market price of CDA in respect of similar plot.

In event petitioner approaches CDA within two weeks from date, CDA will make its position known to petitioner by two weeks thereafter, for compliance in the time directed by CDA.

With above directions, the writ petition is disposed of.

.........................................