AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Savitri Ratho, J. This Writ Petition has been filed praying “to issue of writ/writs in the nature of certiorari and mandamus directing upon the opposite party BMC to allot a plot under Jaga Mission or not to demolish the temporary house where is staying with his family till allotment of a plot”.
CASE OF THE PETITIONER
The Petitioner was staying in a slum in Mahisakhal in BJB Nagar area and for construction of road, his house was demolished by BMC, Bhubaneswar. After the demolition, a survey was conducted for the persons staying in slum area of Mahisakhal, BJB Nagar, Bhubaneswar to identify beneficiaries under Rajib Awas Yojana (in short, “RAY”) for settlement in newly constructed flats. The Petitioner had deposited Rs.1,20.000/- , but could not get a flat. He had approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 25559 of 2023. By order dated 06.03.2024, this Court directed BDA to refund the beneficiary contribution and consider him for allotment of a plot under Jaga Mission. But, till now the Petitioner has not been allotted a plot under Jaga Mission and to look after his family , he has constructed a hut on Mahishakal road side which the BDA has threatened to demolish.
ORDER IN W.P.(C) NO. 25539 of 2023
Perused the order dated 06.03.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No. 25539 of 2023 which had been earlier filed by the petitioner . The relevant portions of the order passed by this Court are extracted below:
“5.Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties and counter affidavit of opposite party No.2 followed by a rejoinder by the petitioner and having reached at a conclusion that the Rajiv Gandhi Awas Yojana scheme is no more available and the petitioner having applied under „Jaga Mission‟ and the same is under process, as no case is made out for allotment as well even though deposit is made by him vide Annexure-8, the Court is of the view that it would instead be appropriate to direct the authority concerned to examine if any such allotment in his favour under „Jaga Mission‟ to be permissible. In other words, the Court is of the conclusion that the petitioner is not eligible and entitled for any such allotment of the flat in occupation under Rajiv Gandhi Awas Yojana scheme.
6.Hence, it is ordered.
7.In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to opposite party Nos.2 to 4 to consider the request of the petitioner as a beneficiary under „Jaga Mission‟ in respect of which an application is pending decision at the earliest preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is further directed that the deposit of Rs.1,20,000/- by the petitioner under Annexure-8 shall be refunded by opposite party No.4 soon after a request is received from him.”
SUBMISSIONS
PETITIONER
Mr. R. K. Sahoo, learned counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the Petitioner is a poor person who was staying in a slum in Mahisakhal, BJB Nagar, Bhubaneswar and for construction of road, his house was demolished by the BMC. It was decided by the BMC to settle the persons whose houses were demolished due to construction of road, for which a Survey was conducted for the persons staying in the slum area of Mahisakhal, BJB Nagar, Bhubaneswar, to identify beneficiary under RAY for settlement in newly constructed flat but the Petitioner did not get a flat although the local committee has allotted a flat and the petitioner had deposited Rs. 1,20,000/- as beneficiary contribution. It was not regularised by the BMC for which the petitioner filed WP(C) No. 25539 of 2023 and it was disposed of by order dated 06.03.2024 directing the BDA to refund the beneficiary contribution and consider him for allotment of a plot under Jaga Mission. The petitioner has not been allotted a plot under Jaga Mission till date and is staying in transit house in Mahisakhal basti till now.
The family of the Petitioner consists of his old parents, wife, grown up son and daughter, for which he badly needs a place to take shelter. For that purpose, he has constructed a temporary kuchha house in the Govt. land in Mahisakhal after consultation with the corporator and local bodies as an austerity measure as his slum house was demolished by the authorities. He has also taken an electricity connection to the temporary house and water connection has been provided by TPCODL. This construction does not disturb anybody and the local Corporator has certified that the petitioner is staying in Mahisakhal for the last 35 years. Except the petitioner, other slum dwellers have been allotted Flats/house under the RAY scheme in the slum area, but the Petitioner has not been considered, although he was eligible for the same, for which he has constructed a temporary kachha house on Govt. land. He had approached this Court in W.P.(C) 25539 of 2023, but till today, he has not been allotted a plot. Although he has submitted his grievance before the Deputy Commissioner BMC for allotment of a plot under Jaga Mission, but till today no land has been allotted. His representation dated 11.02.2020 has been received by the BMC, but till today no plot has been allotted under Jaga Mission by the Opposite Party No.2- Deputy Commissioner, BMC and thereafter he has given his grievance orally and by written communication.
OPPOSITE PARTIES
No counter affidavit has been filed in the writ petition but an objection supported by affidavit has been filed in the I.A. No. 14417 of 2026. Mr. Sarangi, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties submitted that this objection may be treated as counter affidavit of the Opposite Parties.
Mr. Sarangi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Parties referring to order dated 06.03.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No. 25539 of 2023 submitted that although direction had been issued to the Opposite Party No. 2 and 4 in the said writ petition to consider the request of the Petitioner as a beneficiary under the Jaga Mission and to refund the money deposited by him under RAY soon after request is made by him, but he has not made any request for refund. He has also submitted that Bhubaneswar Development Authority has not been made a party in this writ petition. He has submitted that the Petitioner has never been evicted from Mahisakhali Basti and has never stayed in the transit house as a land oustee and has never applied under the scheme of Jaga Mission and his name is not reflected in the list of persons prepared under the Jaga Mission. He has also submitted that the Petitioner has not been issued notice to vacate any Kacha house and the notice annexed to the IA has been issued to owner of a garage situated behind Building Block No.9. But if the kacha house has been constructed on the road, blocking the road and creating hurdles for public movement, it will have to be demolished.
Mr. Sarangi, learned counsel has relied on the order dated 12.05.2025 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 15942 of 2024 in the case of Kamala Singh vs. State of Odisha and others, where this Court has held that once an order of eviction is passed after hearing the party and the order attains finality , “ the removal and / or eviction should be ensured by taking adequate measures as provided in the said statute and in the event the statute is silent, assistance or help of the police personnel for removal thereof can be taken. The authority is permitted to approach the police administration for removal of the encroachers and the structures standing thereupon.”
JAGA MISSION
Odisha Livable Habitat Mission or JAGA MISSION, is an initiative of the State Government to reduce vulnerability of the urban poor by providing them with land rights and basic civic amenities.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
The Petitioner had earlier filed, W.P.(C) No. 25539 of 2023, where this Court found that the RAY Scheme is no longer available and the Petitioner was neither eligible nor entitled for allotment of flat under RAY Scheme. The concerned authority was directed to examine if any allotment could be made in his favour under Jaga Mission.
The Petitioner has not impleaded Bhubaneswar Development Authority in this writ petition. In W.P.(C) No. 25539 of 2023, the Vice Chairman and the Estate Officer had been impleaded as Opposite Party Nos. 4 and 5.
The Opposite Parties have stated that the petitioner has not filed any application before the Opposite Parties for his consideration for allotment of the land under Jaga Mission. The Petitioner has also not filed copy of any application for consideration for allotment under the Jaga Mission Scheme. The petitioner has claimed that he had sent a representation on 11.02.2020 which was received by the BMC but neither has the copy of any application or representation filed nor any document produced / annexed to indicate receipt of such representation by the BMC.
Recently the Supreme Court in Fundamental Right to Walk and Foot Path vs. Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs in W.P.(C) No. 844 of 2026 has directed the authorities to ensure that there are properly demarcated encroachment free footpaths (space) for pedestrians, so that they can move about freely without threat of moving vehicles. As the petitioner has allegedly encroached on the land meant for public road or earmarked for construction of public road, this Court cannot extend any protection to him. The local Corporator has no authority to permit a person to encroach on a public road.
In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. It is open to the petitioner to apply to the authorities for considering his case under the Jaga Mission scheme, if he is otherwise eligible.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.