The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.3197 of 2025 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 22-Oct-2025 15:32:00 (In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950). M/s Hara Briquette Industries …. Petitioner(s) -versus- Collector and District Magistrate, Jagatsinghpur and Ors. …. Opposite Party (s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Petitioner(s) For Opposite Party (s) : : Mr. Manash Ranjan Nayak, Adv. Mr. Bibakananda Nayak, AGA Mr. Bijaya Kumar Dash, Adv. CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-03.09.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-17.10.2025 Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. The Petitioner, in this Writ Petition, challenges Estate Officer’s order No.12499 dated 25.04.2023 passed in EUO Case No.27/87 and the Collector and District Magistrate, Jagatsinghpur’s appellate order dated 08.02.2024. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
Facts
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: Page 1 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 22-Oct-2025 15:32:00 (i) The property is IDCO Plot No.35(A), Village Paradeepgarh, Khata No.381, Revenue Plot No.1067(P), area Ac.0.125, originally allotted on 13.05.1982 for a coal briquette unit (registration No.150406623), with initial identification as Plot No.43(2) later renumbered to 35/A. (ii) IDCO cancelled the allotment on 06.11.1986 citing dues/non-utilization and initiated EUO No.27/87; an eviction order was passed on 21.07.1987. (iii) The petitioner deposited Rs.32,500 under an OTS in 2009–2011 period towards HP dues; earlier and later settlement/OTS communications were issued by IDCO. (iv) Fresh show-cause notices for cancellation issued on 22.07.2015 and 10.03.2017 referred to non-utilization, arrears (Rs.2,334 as on 04.03.2017), absence of industrial activity, and unauthorized residential use. (v) The petitioner claims operations of “Hara Briquette Industry” occurred broadly between 1988 and 2004 and later sought to change activity to a prawn processing unit; IDCO asserts no approval for such change exists on its portal or records. (vi) The petitioner relies on online payments/receipts including Rs.6,490 dated 09.03.2022 for “activity charges,” Rs.7,060 and Rs.1,516 dated 13.03.2022, and Rs.1,139 dated 26.12.2024; IDCO disputes that these reflect a sanctioned trade modification. (vii) The petitioner applied on the IDCO portal on 10.03.2022 seeking revocation of cancellation; objections were issued on 04.05.2023 noting pendency of appeal/proceedings. (viii) The Estate Officer on 25.04.2023 authorized eviction under Section 5(2) of the OPP(EUO) Act; DH Cuttack requested police support on Page 2 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 22-Oct-2025 15:32:00 30.05.2023; interim stay was granted on 03.07.2023 in OPP EUO Appeal No.03/2023; the appeal was dismissed on 08.02.2024. (ix) Following dismissal, the Estate Court issued memo dated 01.11.2024 directing eviction; DH Paradeep sought deputation of an Executive Magistrate on 13.01.2025 for execution. (x) The petitioner pleads that the 1986 cancellation had been revoked in 2011 and that later notices in 2017 and cancellation in 2018 constituted a fresh cause; IDCO maintains continuity of breaches justifying eviction. (xi) Both sides rely on IDCO Circulars and procedural records, including references to Clause 2.7 (change of activity) and Clause 2.11 (revocation) of the 23.07.2016 circular, though their application to the petitioner’s case is contested. (xii) The current writ WP(C) No.3197/2025 seeks quashing of the 25.04.2023 and 08.02.2024 orders and revival/continuation of allotment with permission to change activity; the Opposite Parties seek dismissal with costs. II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: 3. (i) Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: The impugned orders dt.25.04.2023 and 08.02.2024 are bad in law, illegal, mechanical, and passed without proper appreciation of facts and records. (ii) Both Estate Officer and Appellate Authority failed to consider IDCO Circular dt.23.07.2016, particularly Clause 2.7 (change of activity with penalty) and Clause 2.11 (revocation of cancellation upon compliance). Page 3 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 22-Oct-2025 15:32:00 (iii) The petitioner complied with all requirements, payment of dues, penalty for unauthorized change of activity, submission of documents, sufficient to entitle revocation and continuation of allotment. (iv) Divisional Head, IDCO, Cuttack, accepted compliance, recommended closure of EUO No.27/87, and it was recorded in Estate Officer’s order dt.25.07.2022. Yet eviction order was later passed ignoring this fact. (v) Continuation of EUO No.27/87 initiated on the basis of 1986 cancellation is unsustainable since that cancellation was revoked in 2011, and new notices/cancellation in 2017-2018 impliedly extinguished earlier proceedings. (vi) IDCO’s acceptance of subsequent payments including Rs.1,139/- on 26.12.2024 shows its intention to continue the allotment, contradicting eviction. III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES: 4. The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: (i) Orders of Estate Officer and Collector are strictly in accordance with Section 9(2) of the Odisha Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972, passed after due statutory compliance, hearing, and appreciation of records; writ is devoid of merit. (ii) Petitioner’s persistent defaults in HP and statutory dues, non-utilization of plot for the sanctioned industrial purpose, cessation of activity since 2004, encroachment, and unauthorized residential use constitute clear breaches justifying cancellation and eviction under OPP(EUO) Act. Page 4 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 22-Oct-2025 15:32:00 (iii) Any payments such as Rs.6,490 shown by petitioner are not backed by a valid, sanctioned change-of-trade authorization; searches of GO-1 Pass portal and Divisional records reveal no approved application or order permitting conversion from coal briquette to prawn processing. (iv) The claim of employing 30 destitute women and of continuous industrial operations is unsubstantiated; petitioner engaged in unauthorized activities without approvals, aggravating violations of
Legal Reasoning
“Having upheld the cancellation due to KNMT’s chronic default, we observe that the hasty allotment followed by years of litigation exemplifies systemic deficiencies in the allocation process. This necessitates comprehensive directions to ensure that future allocations uphold principles of transparency and accountability, thereby preventing prolonged disputes while ensuring that public resources genuinely promote industrial development and economic growth.” 2 2025 INSC 791. Page 8 of 12 12. In the present case, even after availing the OTS, the petitioner did not Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 22-Oct-2025 15:32:00 revive the coal briquette unit or obtain any approval for an alternative project in a timely manner. Fresh notices were issued in 2015 and 2017 because the breaches persisted, the unit was non-functional, arrears had accrued, and unauthorised use i.e. residential occupation was noted. This led to a fresh cancellation decision in 2018 after due notice, which the petitioner chose not to specifically challenge at that time. Thus, the eviction proceeding (EUO 27/87) was effectively in furtherance of the sustained enforcement action against the petitioner’s continued unauthorised occupation, not a barred or concluded matter. The petitioner cannot credibly treat the long history of leniency and multiple notices as a waiver of default; on the contrary, those factors highlight that ample opportunity was given to comply, and yet the core violation, non-utilisation of a public industrial asset, remained. 13. The petitioner’s reliance on IDCO’s Circular dated 23 July 2016 (“Master Circular”), particularly Clause 2.7 (change of activity) and Clause 2.11 (revocation of cancellation), is misplaced. Clause 2.7 allows change of project activity only with prior IDCO approval and payment of prescribed charges, while Clause 2.11 permits revocation of cancellation only after full compliance with the causes of cancellation. These provisions offer a second chance only when the default is completely cured and the competent authority formally approves it. 14. In this case, cancellation was due to failure to establish and operate the sanctioned industry and unauthorized use of the premises. That default was never rectified, the plot remained unused industrially, and no prawn processing unit was ever authorized. The petitioner’s online Page 9 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 22-Oct-2025 15:32:00 payments in March 2022 (e.g. ₹6,490 labelled “activity charges”) were unilateral deposits without any sanctioned change of project. IDCO’s records show no approval for converting the coal briquette project into a prawn unit. Moreover, the petitioner’s application for revocation, filed while eviction proceedings were pending (EUO 27/87), could not be considered. Both the Estate Officer and appellate Collector (2023–24) found no substantive compliance, payment of dues alone cannot revive a defunct unit or cure misuse of land. 15. The Master Circular is only a policy guideline; it creates no enforceable right without actual fulfilment of conditions and an IDCO decision applying it. Given the petitioner’s persistent default and non- utilization, the authorities’ decision to recover the industrial land rather than entertain a belated proposal for change of project was lawful and justified. 16. The facts of this case exemplify the principle that public properties allotted for industrial development cannot be allowed to remain unproductive indefinitely in the hands of an allottee who fails to deliver on the promised venture. The Odisha Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation (IDCO), as a statutory development authority, holds and allots land in public trust for the purpose of catalyzing industrial growth and employment. When an allottee breaches the terms and leaves the land idle or puts it to unauthorised use, the authority not only has the right but indeed a duty to cancel the allotment and reallocate the land to someone who will utilize it for the intended public benefit. Page 10 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 22-Oct-2025 15:32:00 17. It is imperative to note that equitable considerations cannot override the necessity of adhering to the terms of an allotment, especially when public resources are involved. The present petitioner’s plea for indulgence, after roughly four decades since allotment and over fifteen years of admitted inactivity, cannot be countenanced without doing violence to these well-settled norms. V. CONCLUSION: 18. In sum, the petitioner has not demonstrated any illegality, perversity, or procedural unfairness in the impugned orders of eviction that would justify judicial intervention. On the contrary, the record reveals a justified exercise of statutory power by IDCO to reclaim an industrial plot that was grossly underutilized and misused, after extending multiple opportunities to the allottee. The Estate Officer’s order under Section 5(2) of the OPP(EUO) Act and the appellate order of the Collector (passed under Section 9 of the Act) are in accordance with law, based on evidence of persistent breach by the petitioner, and have considered the petitioner’s representations. This Court’s writ jurisdiction is not an appellate forum to re-appreciate facts or to indulge a defaulting allottee with unlimited leniency. 19.
Arguments
allotment terms and IDCO norms. (v) Appellate delay of 12 days was condoned to afford fair opportunity; after full consideration, the Collector rendered a reasoned affirmance; hence, no procedural prejudice or violation of natural justice can be alleged by the petitioner. (vi) Prior OTS/GTS settlements and deposits (including Rs.32,500) addressed parts of dues but did not cure foundational breaches of non- utilization and unauthorized use; compliance with financial settlements does not create equity against lawful eviction for continuing breaches. (vii) The 1986 cancellation and subsequent EUO proceedings, coupled with fresh show-cause notices in 2015/2017 and continued violations, establish a consistent course of enforcement; the petitioner cannot rely on isolated receipts or portal entries to defeat statutory eviction orders. (viii) Consequent eviction steps taken post-appeal dismissal, including Estate Court memo dated 01.11.2024 and requisition for Executive Magistrate in January 2025, are lawful sequelae; writ reliefs for revocation, restoration, or change-of-activity approval are untenable and should be rejected with costs. Page 5 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 22-Oct-2025 15:32:00 IV. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 5. 6. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and meticulously analysed the documents placed before this Court. Having perused the record and considered rival submissions, this Court’s interference under Articles 226/227 is limited to correcting jurisdictional errors or violations of natural justice. It is evident that the petitioner was given due notice of cancellation and eviction proceedings, an opportunity to show cause, and a statutory appeal before the Collector. The Estate Officer’s order dated 25.04.2023 and the appellate order dated 08.02.2024 are reasoned decisions addressing the petitioner’s contentions. 7. A plethora of judicial precedents have cautioned that in matters of eviction from public premises, High Courts should not interfere with the statutory process unless there is a clear breach of natural justice. When a case pertains to eviction from public premises, High Courts should not interfere with the statutory process unless there is a clear breach of natural justice. This stance was affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Council, Neemuch v. Mahadeo Real Estate1 wherein it held as follows: “14. It could thus be seen that the scope of judicial review of an administrative action is very limited. Unless the Court comes to a conclusion that the decision-maker has not understood the law correctly that regulates his decision- making power or when it is found that the decision of the decision-maker is vitiated by irrationality and that too on the principle of ‘Wednesbury unreasonableness’ or unless it is found that there has been a procedural impropriety in the decisionmaking process, it would not be permissible for the 1 (2019) 10 SCC 738 Page 6 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 22-Oct-2025 15:32:00 High Court to interfere in the decision-making process. It is also equally well settled that it is not permissible for the Court to examine the validity of the decision but this Court can examine only the correctness of the decision-making process. *** 16. It could thus be seen that an interference by the High Court would be warranted only when the decision impugned is vitiated by an apparent error of law i.e. when the error is apparent on the face of the record and is self-evident. The High Court would be empowered to exercise the powers when it finds that the decision impugned is so arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person would have ever arrived at. It has been reiterated that the test is not what the Court considers reasonable or unreasonable but a decision which the Court thinks that no reasonable person could have taken. Not only this but such a decision must have led to manifest injustice” 8. The abovementioned precedent makes it clear that if an aggrieved party has been afforded a fair hearing, even an erroneous conclusion by the authority is not per se ground for writ intervention. In the present case, no procedural impropriety or denial of hearing is demonstrated. The appellate authority even condoned a filing delay to ensure the petitioner was heard on merits. Thus, no telling circumstances of unfairness are shown that would warrant this Court’s extraordinary interference. 9. However, even if this Court examines the case on merits, the petitioner has failed to establish any illegality in the cancellation of the industrial plot or the ensuing eviction order. It is undisputed that the plot, allotted in 1982 for a coal briquette unit, was not utilized for the sanctioned purpose for an extensive period (by the petitioner’s own account, industrial operations ceased around 2004). The allotment was Page 7 of 12 conditional on productive use of the land for industrial development, and prolonged non-utilization strikes at the very object of the scheme. 10. The petitioner’s arguments to invalidate the eviction do not withstand Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 22-Oct-2025 15:32:00 scrutiny. First, the contention that the 1986 cancellation was revoked in 2011 is not supported by any cogent proof of a formal revocation order. The record indicates that while certain one-time settlement (OTS) payments were accepted towards outstanding dues in 2009-2011, IDCO never issued an order rescinding the cancellation or restoring the lease. Mere acceptance of arrears or penalties does not, by itself, create a right to continued allotment when the foundational breach, failure to establish and run the industry, remained unremedied. 11. Indeed, the Supreme Court in the recent case of Kamla Nehru Memorial Trust and Anr. v. U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Limited and Ors.2 declined equitable relief to an allottee who belatedly sought to cure defaults long after the stipulated period, underscoring that continued non-compliance with essential obligations disentitles the allottee from claiming restoration of the allotment as a matter of right. The relevant excerpts are produced below:
Decision
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is devoid of merit. It stands dismissed. IDCO and its authorities are at liberty to proceed with eviction and resumption of the property in question, in accordance with law and applicable rules. Page 11 of 12 20. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 22-Oct-2025 15:32:00 (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 17th October, 2025/ Page 12 of 12