[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

Smt. Puspa Pattnaik And Others vs State Of Odisha on 24 March, 2026

Author: B.P. Routray

Bench: B.P. Routray

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC, Cuttack
Date: 24-Mar-2026 18:07:23




                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                             WP(C) No.19534 of 2023

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


                   Smt. Puspa Pattnaik and Others               ....                Petitioners

                                                             -versus-

                   State of Odisha, represented
                   through its Secretary, Department
                   of General Administration and ...                           Opposite Parties
                   Others

                  Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-

                                 For Petitioners      :   Mr. Amit Prasad Bose, Advocate
                                 For Opp. Parties     :   Mr. T.K. Dash, A.G.A.
                                                          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

24th March, 2026

B.P. Routray, J.

1. Heard Mr. A.P. Bose, learned counsel for the petitioners, 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. T.K.

Dash, learned AGA for opposite party No.1.

2. Petitioner No.1 is the allottee of residential plot No.166 under

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

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

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

behind their plot measuring 40 feet X 58 feet (2320 Sq. Feet) belonging

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

Accordingly petitioner no.1 made an application on 31st May, 2004 to

allot said surplus land in their favour.

4. 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.

5. It is submitted by Mr. Bose, learned counsel on behalf of the

petitioners that, the application of the petitioners for allotment of the

surplus patch of land dated 31st May, 2004 is still pending consideration

before opposite party no.2 and in the meantime the advertisement dated

30th December 2020 under Annexure-3 has been issued. It is true that

after issuance of the advertisement under Annexure-3 the petitioners

have not made any application for allotment of the surplus land in their

occupation adjoining to their plot to the authority till date. But this court

while considering cases of some other plot owners in different writ

petitions, viz., WP(C) No.19522 of 2023, WP(C) No.19526 of 2023,

WP(C) No.19532 of 2023, WP(C) No.19531 of 2023 and other writ

petitions, where those respective petitioners had applied for grant of the

surplus land in their favour pursuant to issuance of the advertisement

under Annexure-3, has passed certain directions to take decision in

respect of those petitioners regarding allotment of such surplus lands.

6. Mr. Bose further submits that though the petitioners have not

applied for allotment of the surplus land in their favour but the fact

remains undisputed that said surplus patch of land measuring 40 feet X

58 feet is in occupation of the petitioners till date from the date of their

allotment of plot No.166. Accordingly they may be permitted to apply to

the authority concerned pursuant to the advertisement at Annexure-3 and

in such event the case of the petitioners may also be considered by the

authority appropriately.

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

decision to allot such 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

to be fulfilled as per the decision of the authority. Mr. Mohapatra further

submits that the petitioners are sheer encroachers of the additional land

adjacent to their allotted land who have constructed a boundary wall

around the same and now by virtue of their application dated 31st May,

2004 the petitioners are claiming right for allotment of such additional

land in their favour. According to Mr. Mohapatra, when the authority has

not taken the decision yet, 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 petitioners to get the additional land

allotted in their favour.

8. Mr. Mohapatra, learned senior counsel further submits that in the

given facts of the present case the petitioners cannot be treated equally

with those other petitioners for the reason that they have not approached

the authority for allotment of the surplus land pursuant to issuance of the

advertisement under Annexure-3.

9. 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.

10. 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 petitioners

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

petitioners' claim is in respect of the additional land measuring 40 feet x

58 feet as shown in the chart under Annexure-A/2.

11. As stated above the petitioners were 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.166. The

prayer of the petitioners is of two-fold, first, not to demolish the

boundary wall constructed covering such additional patch of land and

secondly, to consider their application dated 31st May, 2004 for allotment

of the additional land in their 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.

12. 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 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."

13. Upon hearing both parties and considering the facts as submitted

by the petitioners as well as opposite party no.2 and taking note of the

direction of this court passed in other writ petitions stated above, present

writ petition is also disposed of with a direction to opposite party No.2 to

consider the prayer of the petitioners for allotment of the surplus land in

their occupation as per the joint demarcation report under Annexure-A/2,

in the event the petitioners makes an application to that effect in terms of

the advertisement under Annexure-3, within a period of 30 days from

today along with the certified copy of this order.

14. Opposite party no.2 is further directed to take decision in respect

of petitioners' prayer to get such adjacent additional land to be allotted in

their favour with a view that they are in occupation of the same for last