Orissa High Court
Smt. Rajashree Gajendra vs State Of Odisha & Others on 21 November, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.13536 of 2016
(Through hybrid mode)
Smt. Rajashree Gajendra .... Petitioner
Mr. S.K. Gajendra, Sr. Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. Y.S.P. Babu,
Additional Government Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
ORDER
Order No. 21.11.2022
14. 1. Mr. Gajendra, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of
petitioner and submits, his client had applied for allotment of
Acs.2.5 of land under the Odisha Industrial Policy, 1996 for setting
up a hotel. Initially a plot was allotted but possession could not be
given. Subsequently, another plot at an alternate site was allotted,
of area of Ac.1.285 decimals and given possession. Area of the plot
being wholly insufficient for the project contemplated and land
applied, his client sought allotment of the balance project land, as
additional land. He adds, the project was duly recommended. The
additional land will also serve as access to the national highway.
// 2 //
2. In spite of best efforts of his client to obtain allotment of the
balance land, in spite of recommendation by officers in the
Government that such land was necessary, the application was
rejected by order dated 26th December, 2009 passed by The
Hon'ble Chief Minister. This was challenged by his client in
W.P(C) no.1576 of 2010 resulting in judgment dated 6th April,
2011. He draws attention to the judgment to show the reasons, on
which impugned therein order of The Hon'ble Chief Minister was
set aside and quashed.
3. Subsequent to said judgment there was another judgment
dated 24th February, 2012 in W.P.(C) no.19834 of 2011, whereby,
inter alia, view taken was that prayer of his client for allotment of
additional land for construction of road between the national
highway and already allotted plot, is not unjustified.
4. His client preferred special leave petition being Special
Leave to Appeal (C) no.7964 of 2014, disposed of on order dated
2nd July, 2014. Text of the order is reproduced below.
"Delay condoned.
We have heard learned counsel for the
petitioner. We are not inclined to interfere
with the impugned order because the High
Court has remanded the matter to the State
Government for consideration of the claim of
the petitioner. We are confident that the State
Government will consider the representation
of the petitioner taking into account the
observations of the High Court.
The special leave petition is disposed
of."
// 3 //
5. In spite of the above, impugned order dated 10th March, 2016
was made, once again rejecting his client's application for
additional land. He submits, the order does not bear reasons. There
should be direction compelling the authorities to allot the land, on
quashing impugned order.
6. We have perused, inter alia, impugned order. Prima facie, it
appears, recommendation no.1 is the reason for rejection. The
recommendation is reproduced below.
"1. The team verified feasibility to provide 2nd
road connectivity from the sotht side (NH-5)
of the hotel site. But the team did not consider
it proper as it would pose serious problem for
maintenance and repair of heavy water pipe
line passed to the nearby high level water
tank. Executive Engineer, GPEO have raised
objection for using the site for road purpose in
his letter No.19283 dtd. 1.11.2014."
7. Mr. Babu, learned advocate, Additional Government
Advocate appears on behalf of State and prays for adjournment to
obtain instruction and submit.
8. Adjournment granted is peremptory since, the writ petition is
of year 2016 and pleadings are complete.
9. List on 30th November, 2022 as prayed for by Mr. Babu.
(Arindam Sinha)
Judge
(S.K. Mishra)
P.Pradhan Judge
