AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.K. Mishra, J
In both these writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed for writ of mandamus directing the opposite party nos.1 and 2 especially the opposite party
no.2- Inspector-In-Charge, Saheed Nagar Police Station, Bhubaneswar in W.P.(C) No.19171 of 2017 and the opposite party no.3 in W.P.(C)
No.16414 of 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “the Inspector-In-Charge†for brevity) to modify the order dated 12.01.2017 in a project specific
manner pertaining to Sai Enclave Project so as to enable them to register their dwelling units booked by them in their names individually. The
petitioners have also prayed for a direction to the opposite party no.3-Maa Tarini Estcon (P) Ltd., represented through its Managing Director, Niranjan
Rana in W.P.(C) No.19171 of 2017 and the opposite party no.4 in W.P.(C) No.16414 of 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “the Company†for
brevity) to register the dwelling units booked by them individually in their names and hand over physical possession of the same within a specific period
and direct the opposite party nos.4 and 5 in W.P.(C) No.19171 of 2017 and the opposite party nos.1 and 2 in W.P.(C) no.16414 of 2017 (hereinafter
referred to as “the statutory authorities†for brevity) to allow and accept the sale deeds for registration of plots/ houses in the Project of the
Company in the name and style of “Sai Enclave, Balianta†so as to enable them to register the sale deeds of their dwelling units as purchased by
them from the Company.
It was apparent from the records that the Company floated e-advertisement in local Daily Newspaper for construction and sale of Simplex,
Duplex and Apartments/ Flats and one of them is in the name and style of “Sai Enclave†Housing Complex at Tiranpada, Balianta, Bhubaneswar-
752101. Pursuant to the same, the petitioners submitted applications and made deposits for booking of flats at “Sai Enclave†and all of them had
booked residential accommodations with the Company at the site mentioned above. This development took place in between 2009-2011. On
15.05.2010, the Company entered into agreements with the petitioners individually on separate dates for sale of accommodations. The
accommodations booked by the petitioners were to be delivered within twenty-four months from the date of booking. By the end of June, 2014, the
Company should have delivered physical possession of the residential units to the petitioners, but the Company did not do so. On 26.09.2015, the
Company gave an undertaking to the petitioners to complete the registration of residential units in their favour by December, 2015, thereafter also the
Company failed to do so. On 07.11.2015, in the Minutes of the Meeting held with the Company, the petitioners informed the Company that they would
be constrained to initiate action against the Company, if it failed to meet the date line. On 02.01.2016, the Company had made further commitment for
handing over possession of the residential units to the petitioners by 10.02.2016. Similarly, on 23.02.2016, the Company had made a further undertaking
assuring the petitioners to hand over all the residential units by October, 2016. On 02.06.2016, the petitioners filed an F.I.R. against the Company
before the Inspector-In-Charge. On the same day, the Managing Director of the Company was arrested on the basis of the F.I.R. In October, 2016,
the Managing Director of the Company was granted bail by this Court which is continuing till now. On 31.03.2017, the Company held a meeting with
the petitioners wherein it was decided that as the residential units allotted to the petitioners might be registered with the competent authority, the
petitioners were directed to pay the registration charges before the District Sub-Registrar, Balianta, Bhubaneswar and not before the Company.
Thereafter, the petitioners learnt from the District Sub-Registrar, Balianta, Bhubaneswar that the Inspector-In-Charge had issued a letter dated
12.01.2017 to the Tahasildar, Balianta requesting the Tahasildar, Balianta not to allow any kind of sale/ purchase, deed or power of Attorney in
respect of the landed properties standing in the name of the Company, its sisters concern or the Managing Director of the Company. On 23.07.2017,
the petitioners made a representation to the Inspector-In-Charge for modification of the letter dated 12.01.2017 in a project specific manner i.e.
relating to Sai Enclave, but it evoked no response. Hence, both the aforesaid writ petitions have been filed.
It may be noted, at the outset, that the petitioners and the Company have entered into agreements and in pursuance to the same, the petitioners
want to register the residential units in their names. However, because of issuance of the letter dated 12.01.2017 by the Inspector-In-Charge, the
Tahasildar, Balianta is not registering the dwelling units booked by the petitioners. Similar question had been arisen in the reported case i.e. in the case
of State of Odisha â€"vrs.- Tirupati Panigrahi & Others : reported in 2015 (Supp.-II) OLR 516, wherein this Court had come to the conclusion that the
properties in question in the said case have never been seized by the investigating agency and no application has been filed before the learned District
Judge, Khurda under the provisions of Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 for attachment of the properties. As no property has been seized
and no report has been submitted regarding such seizure, there is no question of confiscation of the properties in question there in the said case at the
time of trial.
Here in this case, the case initiated against the Company i.e. the C.T. No.10 of 2016, arising out of Saheed Nagar P.S. Case No.346 of 2016 is
pending before the Presiding Officer, Designated Court, Cuttack (under O.P.I.D. Act) and the properties in question have not been attached or
confiscated by the OPID court, which was obvious from the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the investigating agency cannot instruct the statutory authority like District
Sub-Registrar or Tahasildar not to allow or register any kind of sale or purchase, instead, he should proceed either under the provisions of Criminal
Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 or under the provisions of the O.P.I.D. Act, to protect the interest of the investors. In this case, the investors
themselves have come forward and prayed that the letter dated 12.01.2017 issued by the Inspector-In-Charge be modified in a project specific
manner to exclude the Sai Enclave Project, so that their properties can be conveyed to them which they have purchased by investing their hard money
and since most of them are Government employees and have retired from their services, so also most of them have taken loan from the banks for
booking the dwelling units in Sai Enclave Project, they having no dwelling units, are facing lots of hardship.
Therefore, both the aforesaid writ petitions are allowed. The letter dated 12.01.2017 of the Inspector-In-Charge, Saheed Nagar Police Station,
Bhubaneswar is modified to the extent that the Tahasildar, Balianta shall entertain the deed of conveyance and sale to be executed by the Company in
favour of the petitioners individually and the cost of registration and the stamp duty shall be borne by the petitioners.
With such observations, both the writ petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
..…………………..