Bhubaneswar: The Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation (BMC) has intervened in a controversy surrounding the proposed operation of an IVF centre from a community hall inside a senior-citizen housing complex near Khandagiri, directing that all work related to the project be stopped until further verification.The dispute centres on the decision of the executive committee of the Association of Allottees of the housing complex to lease around 6,700sqft on the first floor of the community hall to an IVF centre for nine years, from Jan 2026 to Jan 2035.Several residents have alleged that the community hall, which was approved as a common amenity, was handed over to a third-party commercial entity without obtaining unanimous consent of the apartment owners and securing mandatory approvals from competent authorities.According to a complaint, the building plan approved by Bhubaneswar Development Authority in Aug 2010 earmarked the disputed space as an association hall. Residents claimed that extensive interior modifications were done recently for the IVF centre.The issue gained momentum after multiple residents approached various authorities, including the BMC, police, fire services, state pollution control board and health authorities, expressing concerns over privacy, security, increased visitor footfall and the impact on the residential character of the complex.Acting on the complaints, the BMC’s south-west zone first sought detailed clarifications from the association, including copies of resolutions approving the lease, proof of general body approval and statutory permissions that the proposal conformed to the approved building plan. The BMC also directed that no irreversible construction be undertaken.Subsequently, in another communication recently, the BMC ordered immediate stoppage of the work or operation until documents such as permission from the competent authority, written consent of apartment owners, association resolutions and other supporting records are submitted for scrutiny.Residents argued that the association was entrusted only with management and maintenance responsibilities, and did not possess the ownership or proprietary rights over common areas.The controversy further escalated after the developer issued a cease-and-desist notice to the executive committee.In its communication, the company reportedly contended that the executive committee lacked authority to lease or commercially utilise common areas and that such actions could be inconsistent with provisions governing apartment ownership, common areas and association bye-laws.
