Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 27092 (ORI)

Prakash Chandra Panigrahi v. State of Odisha

2026-01-22

Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

body2026
JUDGMENT : Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. The petitioner in the present Writ Petition assails the order of demolition passed by the Rourkela Development Authority vide letter No.2227 dated 02.08.2019, asserting that it was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 2. Succinctly put, the facts of the case are as follows: (i) The petitioner purchased a piece of land measuring Ac. 0.122 decimals, appertaining to Plot No. 184 under Khata No. 32, from Bankim Chandra Mohanty and Subrat Mohanty vide Registered Sale Deed No. 370 dated 06.04.2004. (ii) After purchase of the said land, the petitioner applied for mutation before the Tahasildar, Rourkela, which was registered as Mutation Case No. 345 of 2004. The land was mutated in favour of the petitioner and the Record of Rights was issued accordingly. (iii) For the purpose of his business, the petitioner submitted a building plan before the Rourkela Development Authority, after depositing the requisite scrutiny fees amounting to Rs. 16,575/- on 18.05.2012. (iv) Thereafter, the petitioner commenced construction over the said land and raised a G+3 storied structure, which remains incomplete. (v) On 26.07.2019, the petitioner received a show cause notice issued by the Rourkela Development Authority under Section 91(1) of the Odisha Development Authorities Act, 1982, fixing the date of hearing on 30.07.2019. (vi) Upon enquiry, the petitioner came to know that an earlier show cause notice dated 20.06.2019 had also been issued by the authorities. According to the petitioner, the said notice dated 20.06.2019 was never received by him, and consequently, he was unable to submit any reply thereto. (vii) The petitioner appeared before the office of the Rourkela Development Authority on 30.07.2019 along with his reply to the show cause notice. However, on the said date, the authorities did not accept the reply, nor was any opportunity of hearing afforded to the petitioner. Thereafter, on the same date, i.e., 30.07.2019, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply through registered post with acknowledgment due. In the said reply, the petitioner expressed his intention to regularise the construction in accordance with the applicable Building Regulations or under the Amnesty Scheme then in force. (viii) Subsequent thereto, the petitioner received a letter dated 02.08.2019 communicating the operative portion of the order dated 30.07.2019 passed in Misc. In the said reply, the petitioner expressed his intention to regularise the construction in accordance with the applicable Building Regulations or under the Amnesty Scheme then in force. (viii) Subsequent thereto, the petitioner received a letter dated 02.08.2019 communicating the operative portion of the order dated 30.07.2019 passed in Misc. Case No. 128 of 2004, wherein the petitioner was shown as absent on call and directions were issued for demolition and removal of the alleged unauthorised deviations. (ix) Aggrieved by the order dated 30.07.2019 and the consequential communication dated 02.08.2019, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions. (i) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had purchased the land in question through a registered sale deed dated 06.04.2004, and that the land was duly mutated in his favour. (ii) It was further submitted that the petitioner had submitted a building plan before the Rourkela Development Authority after depositing the requisite scrutiny fees on 18.05.2012, but no decision taken on either approving or rejecting the said plan was ever communicated. In the absence of any such communication, the petitioner commenced construction and raised a G+3 storied building, which remains incomplete. (iii) It was submitted that the petitioner thereafter received a show cause notice dated 26.07.2019 issued under Section 91(1) of the Odisha Development Authorities Act, 1982, fixing the date of hearing on 30.07.2019. The petitioner further contended that he subsequently came to know about the earlier show cause notice dated 20.06.2019, which, according to him, was never served upon him. (iv) Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner appeared before the office of the Rourkela Development Authority on 30.07.2019 along with his reply to the show cause notice; however, the authorities neither accepted the reply nor afforded him an opportunity of hearing. It was further submitted that the petitioner, on the same date, forwarded his reply through registered post with acknowledgment due, wherein he expressed his intention to regularise the construction in accordance with the applicable Building Regulations or under the Amnesty Scheme then in force. (v) It was contended that thereafter the petitioner received a communication dated 02.08.2019, conveying the operative portion of the order dated 30.07.2019 passed in Misc. (v) It was contended that thereafter the petitioner received a communication dated 02.08.2019, conveying the operative portion of the order dated 30.07.2019 passed in Misc. Case No. 128 of 2004, whereby directions were issued for demolition and removal of the alleged unauthorised deviations. It was submitted that although the order records the petitioner as absent on call, the petitioner was, in fact, not permitted to submit his reply nor granted any opportunity of hearing. (vi) Learned counsel submitted that the order dated 30.07.2019 was passed without consideration of the petitioner’s show cause reply and without affording an opportunity of hearing, and therefore suffers from gross violation of the principles of natural justice. (vii) It was further submitted that the petitioner had expressed his willingness to regularise the construction and had sought a spot enquiry to enable compliance with the applicable Building Regulations or the Amnesty Scheme, which was not considered by the authority. III.SUBMISSIONS OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES: 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the following submissions: (i) Learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that for the alleged violations of the provisions of the Odisha Development Authorities Act, 1982, the Rourkela Development Authority initiated Misc. Case No. 128 of 2004 and issued a notice under Section 91(1) of the said Act vide Notice No. 1974/RDA dated 26.07.2019, fixing 12.00 PM on 30.07.2019 for personal hearing. It was submitted that the petitioner received the said notice on 27.07.2019, and the notice along with the acknowledgment receipt dated 27.07.2019 was filed by Opposite Party No. 2. (ii) It was further submitted that the petitioner submitted an undated response in Misc. Case No. 128 of 2004, which, as per the official record, was posted on 30.07.2019 at 1:35 PM. (iii) It was contended that Misc. Case No. 128 of 2004 was disposed of ex parte on 30.07.2019 by an order confirming the earlier order dated 02.02.2005, directing demolition of the front setback, compounding of the non-prohibited area, and submission of a revised plan for regularisation of the remaining portion of the petitioner’s building. It was submitted that the said order was communicated to the petitioner by the Rourkela Development Authority vide Letter No. 2227/RDA dated 02.08.2019. It was submitted that the said order was communicated to the petitioner by the Rourkela Development Authority vide Letter No. 2227/RDA dated 02.08.2019. (iv) It was further submitted that thereafter the planning functions of the Rourkela Development Authority were delegated to the Rourkela Municipal Corporation under Section 111 of the Odisha Development Authorities Act, 1982, pursuant to the Government letter dated 17.08.2019. (v) Learned counsel submitted that in consideration of the revised plan submitted by the petitioner on 07.07.2012, the Rourkela Development Authority, within the period prescribed under Section 16(7) of the Odisha Development Authorities Act, 1982, issued Letter No. 1708 BP/RDA dated 05.09.2012, pointing out three defects for compliance and stipulating that failure to comply within six months would result in automatic rejection of the application. Since the petitioner failed to comply with the defects pointed out, the application stood deemed to have been rejected. (vi) It was submitted that the notice and the order were passed under Section 91(1) of the Odisha Development Authorities Act, 1982, which is appealable under Section 91(2) of the said Act. On that basis, it was contended that the present writ petition is not maintainable in view of the availability of an alternative statutory remedy. IV. COURT’S ANALYSIS AND REASONING 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed on record. 6. The petitioner is challenging the order dated 30.07.2019 passed by the Rourkela Development Authority in Misc. Case No. 128 of 2004, as communicated vide letter dated 02.08.2019, whereby directions were issued for demolition and removal of the alleged unauthorised deviations. 7. The central issue that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order can be sustained in law, in view of the petitioner’s specific plea that no effective opportunity of hearing was afforded to him prior to passing the order. 8. The opposite parties have placed reliance on the show cause notice dated 26.07.2019 fixing 30.07.2019 as the date of hearing, along with an acknowledgment dated 27.07.2019 evidencing service of the said notice upon the petitioner. 9. From a perusal of the impugned order dated 30.07.2019, it is evident that the petitioner was shown as “absent on call” and that the matter was disposed of ex parte on the very date fixed for hearing. 9. From a perusal of the impugned order dated 30.07.2019, it is evident that the petitioner was shown as “absent on call” and that the matter was disposed of ex parte on the very date fixed for hearing. The petitioner, on the other hand, has consistently asserted that he appeared before the authority on the scheduled date, that his reply was not accepted, and that he thereafter dispatched his reply through registered post on the same day. 10. The contention of the opposite parties that the reply was posted after the scheduled time of hearing has been noted. Even assuming such contention to be correct, the record reveals that the authority proceeded to pass an ex parte order on the very date fixed for hearing, without reflecting any consideration of the petitioner’s reply or granting any further opportunity before issuing directions for demolition. 11. An order directing demolition of a structure undoubtedly entails serious consequences. Before resorting to such drastic action, the authority is required to adhere strictly to the principles of natural justice and to afford a real and effective opportunity of hearing. Mere issuance or service of a notice does not, by itself, satisfy the requirement of audi alteram partem unless the affected party is afforded a meaningful opportunity to present his case. 12. In the present case, the fact that the matter was disposed of ex parte on the date fixed for hearing, coupled with the absence of any indication in the impugned order that the petitioner’s reply or his request for regularisation was considered, persuades this Court to hold that the decision-making process is vitiated by procedural infirmity. 13. The objection raised by the opposite parties regarding the availability of an alternative statutory remedy under Section 91(2) of the Odisha Development Authorities Act, 1982 has been duly considered. However, it is well settled that where an order is assailed on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice, particularly when such order is ex parte and entails grave consequences, this Court would not be justified in declining interference solely on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy. 14. It is made clear that this Court has not examined the merits of the controversy, including the legality of the construction or the petitioner’s entitlement to regularisation. All such issues are left open to be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law. 14. It is made clear that this Court has not examined the merits of the controversy, including the legality of the construction or the petitioner’s entitlement to regularisation. All such issues are left open to be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law. V. CONCLUSION: 15. For the reasons stated hereinabove, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order dated 30.07.2019 passed by the Rourkela Development Authority in Misc. Case No. 128 of 2004, as communicated vide letter dated 02.08.2019, suffers from violation of the principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained in law. 16. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. The impugned order dated 30.07.2019 is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to the competent authority presently exercising jurisdiction, named, the Rourkela Municipal Corporation, to issue a fresh notice, afford him a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and, thereafter, pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 17. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, and all contentions of the parties are left open to be urged before the competent authority. 18. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.