[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Bijayalaxmi Ojha vs State Of Odisha on 17 March, 2026
Author: B.P. Routray
Bench: B.P. Routray
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 17-Mar-2026 18:50:48
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.19531 of 2023
(Under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India)
Bijayalaxmi Ojha .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha, represented
through its Secretary, Department
of General Administration and ... Opposite Parties
Others
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
For Petitioner : Mr. Amit Prasad Bose, Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Mr. R. Pradhan, A.S.C.
Mr. D. Mohapatra, Senior Counsel
for O.P. No.2
Mr. Debakanta Mohanty, counsel for
O.P. No.3
CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY
JUDGMENT
17th March, 2026
B.P. Routray, J.
1. Heard Mr. A.P. Bose, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. D.
Mohapatra, learned senior counsel for Bhubaneswar Development
Authority (BDA) (O.P. No.2), Mr. D. Mohanty, learned counsel for
Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation (BMC) (O.P. No.3) and Mr. R.
Pradhan, learned ASC for opposite party No.1.
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
2. The petitioner is the allottee of residential plot No.167 under
Kalinga Vihar Housing Scheme (MIG Category). The order of allotment
was issued on 24th January, 2004.
3. The case of the petitioner is that there is a surplus patch of land
behind his plot measuring 40 feet X 55 feet (2200 Sq. Feet) belonging to
BDA (O.P. No.2), adjacent to his land and the same is left unused.
Accordingly the petitioner made an application in the year 2004 vide
Annexure-6 series and subsequent thereto on different dates. In the year
2020 an advertisement dated 30th December, 2020 was issued by the
BDA proposing to dispose of un-allotted cut piece lands available to the
allotted house / residential / commercial plots within the housing / plotted
development / commercial scheme under the BDA with such specified
terms and conditions, inter alia, that the left out patches of land within
the buildable area of the scheme cannot be used otherwise or developed
as independent residential or commercial plots, which may be considered
for allotment to the land owner who has a plot contiguous or adjacent to
it, and the additional land can be allotted on payment of price which is
equivalent to double of the present Benchmark value. There are many
other stipulations as prescribed under the said advertisement at
Annexure-3 including such other criteria to be decided by the authority.
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Pursuant to the advertisement at Annexure-3, the petitioner made an
application at Annexure-4 series for allotment of the additional adjacent
land measuring 40 feet x 55 feet along with depositing the processing fee
of Rs.5000/-.
4. It is submitted by Mr. Bose, learned counsel on behalf of the
petitioner that, admittedly his application for consideration of allotment
of the said additional land contiguous to his residential plot No.167 is
still vacant and left un-used by the authority, which is in possession of
the petitioner since the date of allotment of his land in Plot No.167.
According to Mr. Bose, by keeping pending his application for allotment
of the additional land since 2021 along with acceptance of the processing
fee deposited by the petitioner, and being the owner of the contiguous
plot, the petitioner has an expectation legitimate on his part for getting
such addition land in his favour. It is also submitted on behalf of the
petitioner that BDA has allotted such addition patch of lands on payment
of price by some of the plot owners, viz., Plot No.169 and 178.
5. Mr. Mohapatra, learned senior counsel for BDA submits that the
decision to allot such additional lands pursuant to the advertisement
under Annexure-3 is yet to be taken by the authority subject to such
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
terms and conditions prescribed in Annexure-3 and such other conditions
to be fulfilled as per the decision of the authority. Mr. Mohapatra further
submits that the petitioner is a sheer encroacher of the additional land
adjacent to his allotted land who has constructed a boundary wall around
the same and now by virtue of his application as per Annexure-4 series
the petitioner is claiming right for allotment of such additional land in his
favour. According to Mr. Mohapatra, when the authority has not yet
taken the decision regarding allotment of such additional lands to the
contiguous land owners within the housing scheme area, no right can
said to have accrued in favour of the petitioner to get the additional land
allotted in his favour.
6. The fact that the petitioner is the allottee of Plot No.167,
measuring area 40 feet x 60 feet within the housing scheme is admitted,
and it is also not disputed that the owners of Plot No.169 and 178 have
been allotted with such additional lands adjoining to their respective
plots. But according to opposite party no.2 such additional lands were
allotted in favour of owners of those plots No.169 and 178 was much
prior to the notification of present advertisement under Annexure-3 as
effected on 10th August 1999 and 19th March 2005, respectively.
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
7. Opposite party no.3 is the BMC who has been subsequently
handed over such lands by the BDA (O.P. No.2) and according to the
submission of the petitioner as well as Mr. Mohapatra, learned senior
counsel for opposite party no.3 present dispute with regard to the
additional lands is no way connected with BMC since no such land is
given to opposite party no.3 presently disputed by the petitioner to claim
in his favour. The land which is in possession of Municipal Corporation
is not presently disputed by the petitioner and so, opposite party no.3 has
no occasion to object to the prayer of the petitioner.
8. Pursuant to order dated 10th September 2025 of this court, a joint
demarcation of the land was conducted by GA Department on 8th
December 2025 in presence of opposite party No.2, 3 and the petitioner
and the report thereof has been filed at Annexure-A/2 to the counter of
opposite party no.2. Said joint demarcation report dated 8 th December
2025 under Annexure-A/2 reveals that the lands allotted to BMC in
respect of each plot named in the report have been segregated and there
is no dispute about the land allotted to BMC. It is also seen that the
petitioner‟s claim is in respect of the additional land measuring 40 feet x
55 feet as shown in the chart under Annexure-A/2.
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
9. As stated above the petitioner was in occupation of the extra land
measuring 40 feet x 55 feet as per the demarcation report under
Annexure-A/2 since the date of allotment of the land in Plot No.167. The
prayer of the petitioner is of two-fold, first, not to demolish the boundary
wall constructed covering such additional patch of land and secondly, to
consider his application under Annexure-4 for allotment of the additional
land in his favour keeping in view the fact of advertisement made by
BDA in the year 2020 as well as the allotment of land to similarly
situated land owners.
10. As per the submissions made on behalf of opposite party no.2 the
authority is yet to take a decision on the allotment of extra patch of land
in terms of the advertisement made on 30 th December, 2020 under
Annexure-3. In this regard opposite party no.2 has stated at paragraph 4
of its counter as follows:-
"4. xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx
As regards the request of the petitioner to allot the said
extra land in their favour citing allotment made in favour of
other house owners, it is submitted that the Authority has not yet
considered the same for the reason to examine as to whether
such area cannot otherwise be utilized for the purpose of BDA.
Upon decision taken and in case it is found that the encroachers
comply the conditions, the encroached land may be allotted to
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
the adjoining land owners on such terms and conditions to be
fixed by BDA as per Land Allotment Regulation and the
decision of the Authority in this regard. Except the contentions
referred to above, other contentions made in these paragraphs of
the writ petition are stoutly denied."
11. The petitioner submits that he has the legitimate expectation to get
the land allotted in his favour by virtue of the advertisement issued under
Annexure-3 as well as by virtue of his continuous possession over the
same and non-consideration of his application by the BDA till date. As
per the doctrine of legitimate expectation, it needs to be fulfilled that the
petitioner has raised a legitimate claim in support of his prayer that he
has expectation to get the land allotted in his favour as a matter of course
and not contrary to law. The doctrine of legitimate expectation operates
in the domain of public law and its scope, inter alia, includes the
assurances given either by way of express policy or notification or
circular or even to certain extent of consistent past practice. In the matter
of land allotment priority within the policy frameworks, individuals can
also rely on the doctrine of legitimate expectation. In Navjyoti Coop.
Group Housing Society v. Union of India (1992) 4 SCC 477, the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court, in a matter relating to allotment of land for
group housing societies, have observed as follows:-
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
"15. It also appears to us that in any event the new policy
decision as contained in the impugned memorandum of January
20, 1990 should not have been implemented without making
such change in the existing criterion for allotment known to the
Group Housing Societies if necessary by way of a public notice
so that they might make proper representation to the concerned
authorities for consideration of their viewpoints. Even assuming
that in the absence of any explanation of the expression "first
come first served" in Rule 6(vi) of Nazul Rules there was no
statutory requirement to make allotment with reference to date
of registration, it has been rightly held, as a matter of fact, by the
High Court that prior to the new guideline contained in the
memo of January 20, 1990 the principle for allotment had
always been on the basis of date of registration and not the date
of approval of the list of members. In the brochure issued in
1982 by the DDA even after Gazette notification of Nazul Rules
on September 26, 1981 the policy of allotment on the basis of
seniority in registration was clearly indicated. In the aforesaid
facts, the Group Housing Societies were entitled to „legitimate
expectation‟ of following consistent past practice in the matter
of allotment, even though they may not have any legal right in
private law to receive such treatment. The existence of
„legitimate expectation‟ may have a number of different
consequences and one of such consequences is that the authority
ought not to act to defeat the „legitimate expectation‟ without
some overriding reason of public policy to justify its doing so.
In a case of „legitimate expectation‟ if the authority proposes to
defeat a person's „legitimate expectation‟ it should afford him an
opportunity to make representations in the matter. In this
connection reference may be made to the discussions on
„legitimate expectation‟ at page 151 of Volume 1(1)
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
of Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th edn. (re-issue). We may also
refer to a decision of the House of Lords in Council of Civil
Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service [(1984) 3 All
ER 935] . It has been held in the said decision that an aggrieved
person was entitled to judicial review if he could show that a
decision of the public authority affected him of some benefit or
advantage which in the past he had been permitted to enjoy and
which he legitimately expected to be permitted to continue to
enjoy either until he was given reasons for withdrawal and the
opportunity to comment on such reasons.
16. It may be indicated here that the doctrine of „legitimate
expectation‟ imposes in essence a duty on public authority to act
fairly by taking into consideration all relevant factors relating to
such „legitimate expectation‟. Within the conspectus of fair
dealing in case of „legitimate expectation‟, the reasonable
opportunities to make representation by the parties likely to be
affected by any change of consistent past policy, come in. We,
have not been shown any compelling reasons taken into
consideration by the Central Government to make a departure
from the existing policy of allotment with reference to seniority
in registration by introducing a new guideline. xxxx"
12. Further, in the case of Food Corporation of India v. Kamdhenu
Cattle Feed Industries, (1993) 1 SCC 71, Hon‟ble Apex Court have held
at paragraph 8 as follows:-
"8. The mere reasonable or legitimate expectation of a citizen, in
such a situation, may not by itself be a distinct enforceable right,
but failure to consider and give due weight to it may render the
decision arbitrary, and this is how the requirement of due
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
consideration of a legitimate expectation forms part of the
principle of non-arbitrariness, a necessary concomitant of the
rule of law. Every legitimate expectation is a relevant factor
requiring due consideration in a fair decision making process.
Whether the expectation of the claimant is reasonable or
legitimate in the context is a question of fact in each case.
Whenever the question arises, it is to be determined not
according to the claimant's perception but in larger public
interest wherein other more important considerations may
outweigh what would otherwise have been the legitimate
expectation of the claimant. A bona fide decision of the public
authority reached in this manner would satisfy the requirement
of non-arbitrariness and withstand judicial scrutiny. The
doctrine of legitimate expectation gets assimilated in the rule of
law and operates in our legal system in this manner and to this
extent."
13. It is admitted that from the date of allotment of the land when the
petitioner got possession of his land in Plot No.167, such extent of
additional land contiguous to his allotted land is left un-used and under
occupation of the petitioner. Even the petitioner has constructed a
boundary wall around the said additional land adjacent to his allotted
land. He has repeatedly made applications to the authority for allotting
said additional patch of land in his favour and more particularly after
issuance of the advertisement made in the year 2020 at Annexure-3. He
even made the application by depositing the prescribed processing fee of
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Rs.5000/-. So this is the condition that gives rise in favour of the
petitioner to expect that the land which is left out by the authority as un-
used for last 22 years to be granted in his favour, more particularly after
issuance of the Advertisement on 30th December 2020. In addition to the
same, the additional patch of lands allotted to the owners of Plot No.169
and 178 also has given a boost to such expectation of the petitioner that
the same will be applied in his case also.
14. It is true that the petitioner has no right to get the land allotted in
his favour or by virtue of his possession as the owner of the contiguous
land it would accrue a right in his favour to get such additional extent of
land. No such right also accrues in favour of the petitioner by any such
statutory provision under the Odisha Development Authorities Act, 1982
and the Regulations made thereunder. His expectation is based on the
fact that such additional land has been left un-used till date for more than
22 years which comes within the buildable area in the housing scheme
area and more to add that, the petitioner is in uninterrupted occupation of
the same. The advertisement at Annexure-3 specifies such terms and
conditions in terms of the BDA land (Disposal and Allotment)
Regulations, 2015 and as per the decision of the authority meeting dated
11th January 2008. But at the same time the fact that the additional land
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
has been left un-used by the BDA despite it has the knowledge of
occupation by the petitioner cannot be ignored. When the application of
the petitioner has been made first in the year 2004, an expectation arose
to him to get the land in his favour upon payment of due price. So now
the authority on the guise that no decision to use such additional lands
has been taken till date, cannot simply brush aside or wash away the
expectations of the petitioner accrued in his favour for last so many years
in the given facts. As per the advertisement at Annexure-3, such
additional lands can be given to the contiguous land owners or the
adjacent land owners on payment of double of the present Benchmark
value. So it is not that the authority by granting such additional plot in
favour of the owner of such allotted plot would give away his right to get
fair price of the same. When it is admitted that decision is yet to be taken
by the authority, it would be appropriate to left open for opposite party
no.2 to take a decision on the prayer of the petitioner within a stipulated
period.
15. Accordingly opposite party no.2 is directed to take a decision in
respect of the petitioner‟s prayer to get such adjacent additional land to
be allotted in his favour with a view that he has an expectation for the
same for last 22 years and also in possession of the same. Opposite Party
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
No.2 - authority is further directed to take such decision within a period
of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order
along with a copy of the brief. In the event, the decision is taken in
favour of the petitioner, present Benchmark value may be considered as
on the date of this judgment.
16. Till such decision is taken, status quo as on date in respect of
nature of the additional land shall be maintained.
17. With aforesaid observation and direction the writ petition is
disposed of.
( B.P. Routray)
Judge
M.K. Panda/P.A.
