Manoj Kumar Sahoo vs State Of Odisha
2026 Latest Caselaw 2529 Ori

Orissa High Court

Manoj Kumar Sahoo 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 19:49:02




                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                                      WP(C) No.19533 of 2023

                                      (Under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India)


                             Manoj Kumar Sahoo                           ....                 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.176 under

Kalinga Vihar Housing Scheme (MIG Category). The order of allotment

under Annexure-1 was issued on 9th Augutst, 1995.

3. The case of the petitioner is that there is a surplus patch of land

behind his plot measuring 40 feet X 31 feet (1240 square feet) belonging

to the BDA (O.P. No.2), adjacent to his land and the same is left unused.

Accordingly, the petitioner made an application in the year 2008 vide

Annexure-5 series and on consideration of such application of the

petitioner opposite party No.2 (BDA) vide their letter dated 23rd July,

2008 intimated the Petitioner that his request for allotment of the

available surplus land measuring 1230 square feet adjacent to the allotted

house in Plot No.176 will be considered after finalization of the land

cost. In the year 2020 an advertisement dated 30 th 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

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack

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.

4. It is submitted by Mr. Bose, learned counsel for the Petitioner that

admittedly his application for consideration of allotment of said

additional land adjacent to his residential plot No.176 is still vacant and

left unused by the authority, which is in possession of the Petitioner since

the date of allotment of his land in Plot No.176. According to Mr. Bose,

after issuance of the letter dated 23rd July 2008 by opposite party No.2 to

consider his case upon finalization of land cost for allotting the surplus

land in his favor give rise to an expectation legitimate on his part for

getting such additional land in his favor. It is also submitted on behalf of

the Petitioner that BDA has allotted other additional patch of lands on

payment of consideration by some of the plot owners, viz. Plot No.169 &

5. Mr. Mohapatra, learned senior counsel for BDA submits that the

decision to allot such an additional lands pursuant to the advertisement

under Annexure-3 is to be taken by the authority yet, subject to such

terms and conditions prescribed in Annexure-3 and such other conditions

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack

to be fulfilled as per the decision of the authorities. Mr. Mohapatra

further submits that the petitioner is a sheer encroacher of the additional

land adjacent to his allotted plot and he has constructed a boundary wall

around the same. After issuance of the advertisement under Annexure-3

prescribing the norms for allotment of such additional lands, the letter

issued by BDA on 23rd July 2008 has become redundant since in any

case the surplus land is required to be allotted upon satisfaction of the

prescribed terms and conditions as per Annexure-3. He further submits

that the authority has not taken any decision yet, regarding allotment of

those additional lands to the contiguous land owners within the housing

scheme area and so, no right can be said to have accrued in favour of the

Petitioner to get that additional land allotted in his favour by virtue of the

letter dated 23rd July 2008 issued by the BDA.

6. The fact that the petitioner is the allottee of Plot No.176,

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 is much prior

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack

to the present advertisement under Annexure-3 as effected on 10th

August 1999 and 19th March 2005, respectively.

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 given

to opposite party no.3 is presently disputed by the petitioner to claim for

in his favour since the land which is in possession of the Municipal

Corporation is not presently disputed by the petitioner, 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 the GA Department in present

of opposite party No.2, 3 and the petitioner on 8 th December, 2025 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 land 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 thereupon. It is also seen

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack

that the petitioner‟s claim is in respect of the additional land measuring

40 feet X 31 feet as shown in the chart under Annexure-A/2.

9. As stated above, the petitioner was in occupation of the extra land

measuring 40 feet X 31 feet as per the demarcation report under

Annexure-A/2 since the date of allotment of the land in Plot No.176. 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

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack

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 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

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack

Hon‟ble Supreme Court, in a matter relating to allotment of land for

group housing societies, have observed as follows:-

"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

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack

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) 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:-

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack

"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 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.176, 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 said additional land adjacent to his allotted land.

On the application of the petitioner dated 3rd April 2008, opposite party

no.2 assured the Petitioner to consider his prayer upon finalization of the

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack

land cost vide their letter dated 23rd July 2008. It needs to be stated here

that such letter dated 23rd July 2008 has not been withdrawn yet, though

not acted upon, by opposite party No.2 and in the meantime the

advertisement dated 30th December 2020 under Annexure-3 has been

published. Therefore, the contention of Mr. Mohapatra, learned Senior

Counsel appearing for opposite party no.2, to the extent that the letter

dated 23rd July 2008 issued by opposite party no.2 has lost its validity

automatically upon issuance of the advertisement under annexure-3 is not

found conceivable. It is for the reason that by issuing the letter on 23rd

July 2008 to consider the prayer of the Petitioner upon finalization of the

land cost, opposite party no.2 has indirectly assured to the Petitioner to

allot such surplus land in his favour and moreover, that assurance has not

been withdrawn yet. So, this raises the expectation legitimate on the part

of the Petitioner to get allotted the land in his favour upon payment of

due consideration amount.

It is true that the Petitioner has not made any application after

issuance of the advertisement under Annexure-3. When the Petitioner

was assured in the year 2008 to get the land allotted in his favour upon

finalization of the land cost, he of course is not required to apply as per

the advertisement under Annexure-3 and in such event, the prayer of the

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack

Petitioner can be considered as a separate case against the assurance

given by opposite party no.2 in their letter dated 23rd July 2008. So, this

condition gives rise expectation in favour of the Petitioner to get the land,

which is left out by the authority as unused for last 30 years, to be

granted in his favour. 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 by virtue of his possession as the owner of the contiguous land

and it would not 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

25 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 issuance letter dated 23rd July 2008 is much prior to the

advertisement issued under Annexure-3 and specifically says that his

request for allotment will be considered upon finalization of the land

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack

cost. Despite such assurance was given in favour of the Petitioner,

nothing progressed and at the same time, the undisputed fact remains that

the additional land has been left unused by the BDA despite it has the

knowledge of occupation by the Petitioner. So now, the authority on the

guise that no decision has been taken yet on the use of those additional

lands, cannot simply brush aside or wash away the expectation of the

Petitioner accrued in his favour for last so many years in the given facts

of the case. It is true that as a matter of Policy the authority has issued the

advertisement under Annexure-3 for use of such additional lands to be

given to contiguous land owners or the adjacent land owners on payment

of the consideration amount. Therefore, it is not that the authority by

granting the additional land in favour of respective owners of the allotted

plots would give away his right to fair price of the same and when it is

admitted that the decision is yet to be taken by the authority, it would be

appropriate to left open for opposite party no.2 to take 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 30 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.