Bhubaneswar Plot Claim Fails After Lottery-Selected Applicant Waited 8 Years To Report Missing Allotment Letter: Odisha HC

The petitioner was selected by lottery for allotment of a residential plot under the 1987 Government land-allotment scheme.

The State maintained that the allotment order dated 9 April 1990, requiring payment of the premium within the stipulated period, had been sent by registered post to the address in his application.

The petitioner denied receiving it and said he had pursued the matter, but the record showed his first grievance petition was made on 25 November 1998 and a further application on 2 July 2001.

The latter was rejected on 29 August 2001 for failure to pay the premium or execute a lease.

He sought quashing of that rejection and a direction to allot the plot.

Earlier interim directions concerning allotment and possession were set aside by the Supreme Court, which directed the High Court to decide the writ petition on its merits.

Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and Section 29 of the Odisha General Clauses Act, 1937 provide that service is deemed effected when a document is properly addressed, prepaid and sent by registered post; the presumption is rebuttable.

Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 permits a presumption that ordinary postal business was followed.

Under Sections 101 and 103 of the Evidence Act, the party asserting non-service bears the burden of proving it.

The Court relied on Parimal v. Veena @ Bharti, C.C. Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed and Ajeet Seeds Ltd. v. K. Gopala Krishnaiah on the presumption of postal service and the addressee’s burden to rebut it.

It also applied State of Odisha v. Malati Biswal and State of Odisha v. Shrimati Mohanty for the principles that prolonged, unexplained delay and failure to meet allotment conditions may defeat a claim to allotment, and that a court should not grant relief after such delay.

The State affirmed that the allotment order had been sent by registered post to the address the petitioner himself supplied, which he did not dispute was correct.

The Court held that the applicable statutory presumption of service therefore arose.

The petitioner offered no cogent evidence to rebut it and produced no documents showing that he had pursued the matter before 1998; his assertion of non-receipt and prior enquiries was accordingly found unsubstantiated.

Given the prolonged delay and failure to pay the premium or execute the lease, the Court found no basis to disturb the rejection or to direct allotment, notwithstanding the claim that the plot remained vacant.

It declined to quash the rejection letter dated 29 August 2001 or issue a mandamus for allotment, and dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merit, with no order as to costs.