[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

Afr Mani Tirumala Projects vs State Of Odisha & Others ....... ... on 31 March, 2026

Author: Sashikanta Mishra

Bench: Sashikanta Mishra

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                               I.A. No. 3931 of 2026
                    Arising out of W.P.(C). No. 798 of 2026

        (An Application under Order I Rule 10 of CPC read with Chapter
        VI Rule 27A of the Orissa High Court Rules)

AFR     Mani Tirumala Projects
        Private Limited & another               .......        Petitioners

                                     -Versus-

        State of Odisha & others                .......   Opposite Parties


        Advocate(s) appeared in this case :-
        _________________________________________________________________
           For Petitioners :        Mr. G. Mukharji, Sr. Advocate with
                                    M/s. Ankita Mukhrji, S.D. Ray,
                                    A. Mishra, S. Acharya, A. Acharya,
                                    R.D.K. Dash & A. Naik, Advocates

          For Opp. Parties :        Mr. A.R. Dash, Addl. Govt. Advocate

                                    Mr. Mohit Agarwal, Advocate
                                    For Intervenor
        _________________________________________________________________
        CORAM:
             JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
                                     ORDER

31st March, 2026

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. This order arises out of the application

filed by Mani Tribhuvan Residents Welfare Association

praying inter alia that they should be permitted to intervene

and be impleaded as an opposite party in the present writ

application.

2. The Intervenor claims that that it is a registered

association of allottees in respect of the residential project

'Mani Tribhuvan' and has been granted deemed registration

by the Bhubaneswar Development Authority under the

provisions of the Odisha Apartment Ownership and

Management Act, 2023.The Association represents the flat

owners of the project and is entitled to ownership of the

common areas, including the project land.

3. The case of the Intervenor is that the original

project was developed pursuant to plan approval on

16.08.2010, which was subsequently revised on 13.02.2017.

According to the Association, the project stood completed

upon grant of occupancy certificate on 16.01.2019. Despite

the project being an 'ongoing project' within the meaning of

Sections 2(p) and 2(q) of the Real Estate (Regulation and

Development) Act, 2016 (in short, RERA Act), the promoter

(writ petitioners) failed to obtain registration under Section 3

of the Act. It is stated that the writ petitioner thereafter

obtained a fresh plan permission on 17.02.2023 for

construction of multiple high-rise towers in place of the

earlier approved duplex units and such permission is illegal

and void. It is alleged that the said alterations were carried

out without obtaining the consent of two-third of the allottees

as provided under Section 14(2)(ii) of the RERA Act, 2016.

Therefore, it is stated that the rights of the members of the

Association would be directly affected by the outcome of the

writ petition for which, it is a necessary and proper party to

the proceeding.

4. Written objection has been filed by the writ

petitioners objecting to the intervention application as not

maintainable either in law or on facts. It is stated that the

affidavit in support of the Intervention application has been

sworn by a person who has not placed any material to

demonstrate that he is duly authorized by the Association to

represent it in the present proceeding. In the absence of any

resolution or authorization, the deponent lacks locus to

maintain the application.

It is further stated that the Association represents

only the flat owners in certain towers forming part of Phase-I

of the project and that their rights are confined to the

respective units along with appurtenant common areas as

defined in the sale deeds executed in their favour. According

to the petitioners, the development of the project was

envisaged in phases and the existence of subsequent phases

was within the knowledge of the allottees at the time of

purchase. It is also stated that the Association has wrongly

claimed ownership over the entire project land, which is

contrary to the terms of the sale deeds and the bye-laws of

the Association. The petitioners have further relied upon

documents to state that the Association itself had

acknowledged the petitioners' control over the land

earmarked for subsequent development.

5. Heard Mr. Mohit Agarwal, learned counsel for the

Intervenor- Association and Mr. Goutam Mukherjee, learned

Senior Counsel with Ms. Ankita Mukhrji, learned counsel for

the writ petitioner.

6. Mr. Agarwal would submit that the Association

cannot be treated as a stranger as it represents the body of

allottees. He argues that the outcome of the writ petition

would have a direct bearing on the rights of the allottees in

respect of the project land and common areas. He would

further submit that the subsequent development sought to be

undertaken by the petitioner is not a mere extension but

amounts to a substantial alteration of the original project,

thereby attracting the provision of Section 14(2)(ii) of the

RERA Act. According to him, non-compliance with the said

provision directly affects the legal rights of the allottees. He

therefore, submits that in the absence of the Association, the

issues relating to the impact of such development on the

rights of the allottees may not be effectively brought to the

notice of this Court and for such reason, it is at least a proper

party.

7. Per contra, Mr. Mukherjee would argue that the

Association has no locus to seek intervention. He submits

that the application itself is not maintainable, as the person

swearing the affidavit has failed to place any material to

demonstrate due authorization to represent the Association.

He further argues that the members of the Association are

confined to certain towers forming part of Phase-I of the

project and their rights are limited to their respective units

and appurtenant common areas as defined under the sale

deeds. According to him, the project was always envisaged to

be developed in phases, and the subsequent development

cannot be said to infringe any right of the Association. He

also argues that the issues sought to be raised by the

Association pertain to disputed questions of title, ownership,

and alleged statutory violations, which are independent in

nature and cannot be adjudicated in the present writ

application.

8. At the outset, this Court deems it proper to

consider the objection raised by the petitioners regarding lack

of authorization of the deponent at the outset. The Intervenor

is an association of allottees and has placed on record its

status as a recognized body under the provisions of the

Odisha Apartment Ownership and Management Act, 2023. In

matters where collective rights of a body of allottees are

asserted, a hyper-technical view with regard to authorization

cannot be allowed to defeat the cause of substantive justice,

particularly when the interest sought to be represented is

prima facie identifiable.

9. The writ petition primarily concerns with the

petitioners' claim for deemed registration and/or rejection of

its application for registration of its project under the RERA

Act. The scope of adjudication therefore, is confined to

examining the petitioner's entitlement within the statutory

framework governing such registration.

10. The principal ground of the Association is that

the subsequent development undertaken by the petitioner

over the same project land, pursuant to plan permission on

17.02.2023, materially alters the nature of the original

project and affects the rights of the existing allottees in

respect of common areas. The petitioners, on the other hand,

dispute such claim and state that the project was envisaged

in phases and that the rights of the allottees are limited.

11. From the rival submissions, it appears that the

issue as to whether the subsequent development constitutes

a mere phase-wise continuation or a substantial alteration

may have a bearing on compliance with the statutory

requirements under the RERA Act, particularly Section

14(2)(ii) which mandates prior consent of two-thirds of the

allottees in case of alterations affecting the sanctioned plan or

common areas. To such limited extent, the submission of Mr.

Agarwal has force.

12. At the same time, this Court is conscious that

the present proceedings cannot be converted into a forum for

adjudication of disputed questions relating to title,

ownership, or inter se contractual rights between the parties.

The role of the Association therefore, must remain confined to

assisting the Court on aspects having a direct nexus with the

statutory compliance relevant for consideration of the

petitioners' claim for registration under the RERA Act.

13. The Association representing the allottees,

demonstrates a limited but direct interest in the subject

matter of the writ petition, inasmuch as issues relating to

statutory compliance may have a bearing on the decision

regarding registration. Such interest is sufficient to treat the

Association as a proper party if not a necessary party.

14. The principles of impleadment under Order I

Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, as applied to

proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

permit addition of a party whose presence would assist in

effective adjudication without enlarging the scope of the lis as

held in the case of Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v.

Municipal Corpn. of Greater Bombay1, wherein the

Supreme Court observed as follows:

"5. It was argued that the Court cannot direct addition of parties against the wishes of the plaintiff who cannot be compelled to proceed against a person against whom he does not claim any relief. Plaintiff is no doubt dominus litis and is not bound to sue every possible adverse claimant in the same suit. He may choose to implead only those persons as defendants against whom he wishes to proceed though under Order 1 Rule 3, to avoid multiplicity of suit and needless expenses all persons against whom the right to relief is alleged to exist may be joined as defendants. However, the Court may at any stage of the suit direct addition of parties. A party can be joined as defendant even though the plaintiff does not think that he has any cause of action against him. Rule 10 specifically provides that it is open to the Court to add at any stage of the suit a necessary party or a person whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit.

6. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 gives a wide discretion to the Court to meet every case of defect of parties and is not affected by the inaction of the plaintiff to bring the necessary parties on record. The question of impleadment of a party has to be decided on the touchstone of Order 1 Rule 10 which provides that only a necessary or a proper party may be added. A necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively. A proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceeding. The addition of parties is generally not a question of initial jurisdiction of the Court but of a judicial discretion which has to be exercised in view of all the facts and circumstances of a particular case.

(1992) 2 SCC 524

7. The respondents do not seriously dispute the position that respondent 2 is not a necessary party to the suit in the sense that without their presence an effective order cannot be passed. However, they support the view that respondent 2 is a proper party whose presence is necessary for a complete adjudication on the controversy.

In the light of the clear language of the rule, it is not open to the appellant to contend that a person cannot be added as defendant even in a case where his presence is necessary to enable the Court to decide the matter effectively."

15. In the present case, the presence of the

Association would aid this Court in considering the

perspective of the allottees on issues having a direct nexus

with statutory compliance, without altering the scope of the

writ petition.

16. At this stage, this Court is not required to

examine the merits of the rival claims, it is sufficient that the

Association has shown a plausible interest in the subject

matter.

17. Accordingly, this Court is satisfied that the

Association is a proper party for effective adjudication of the

issues involved.