Orissa High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.16158 of 2024 (In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950). M/s Anupama Enterprise, Jajpur …. Petitioner(s) -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Party (s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Petitioner(s) For Opposite Party (s) : : Mr.Niranjan Lenka, Adv. Mr. P.K. Mohanty, Sr. Adv. Along with Mr. K. Panda, Adv. (for O.Ps.4 to 6) Mr. B.S. Das, Adv. Ms. Jyoshnamayee Sahoo, ASC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-15.05.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT: -20.06.2025 Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J. 1. The petitioner, in the present Writ Petition, seeks a direction to the Opposite Parties to consider it applications for revocation of the order dated 02.08.2014, whereby the allotment of it plot was cancelled, and to restrain them from evicting it from the said land. 2. The Petitioner further seeks a direction to the Opposite Parties to approve the building plan submitted by it in 2017 before the Page 1 of 13 Signature Not Verified
Legal Reasoning
Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36 Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation authorities as well as the BDO, Dharmasala. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: (i) The petitioner, an educated and unemployed woman, is the proprietor of M/s Anupama Enterprises, a small-scale industrial unit engaged in the manufacture of gunny bags, ropes, and sutulies from jute, hemp, and remiefibre. (ii) Pursuant to a public notice issued by IDCO for the allotment of industrial land at Jaraka, District Jajpur, the petitioner applied for allotment and was allotted Plot No. 23(P), measuring Ac. 0.478 dec. (1934.21 sq. m.), vide Order No. 1901 dated 24.10.2008. A lease deed was executed on 16.03.2009, which included a clause permitting cancellation for non-payment of dues. The petitioner took possession of the plot, paid rent regularly, and commenced manual operations thereon. (iii) On 01.03.2014, Opposite Party No. 4 issued a show cause notice alleging non-utilisation of the allotted land. In its reply dated 18.03.2014, the petitioner cited ill health and assured commencement of construction within a stipulated timeframe. (iv) By order dated 02.08.2014, the allotment was cancelled on the ground of an unsatisfactory response. On 22.08.2014, the petitioner submitted a construction plan and sought its approval. (v) IDCO initiated eviction proceedings under the Orissa Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972, by registering Case Page 2 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36 No. 1274/2014. In her reply dated 30.01.2015, the petitioner attributed the delay to illness, adverse family circumstances, lack of water supply, and non-approval of the submitted plan. (vi) On 16.06.2015, the Estate Officer adjourned the hearing, noting the petitioner’s contention that the cancellation order had not been served upon her. (vii) The petitioner submitted representations to the CMD, IDCO, on 02.07.2015 and again on 13.07.2015, seeking revocation of the cancellation order. However, no action was taken. (viii) By letter dated 17.07.2015, the Divisional Head, IDCO, directed the petitioner to submit a prescribed booklet. Complying with the same, she submitted the building plan along with the requisite documents on 25.08.2015. (ix) In further compliance, the petitioner re-submitted documents and, by application dated 09.01.2015, undertook to complete construction within nine months. She reiterated this commitment in another application dated 19.12.2015. (x) On 26.12.2015, the petitioner submitted a fresh application for revocation before the General Manager, MSMB, IDCO. Despite repeated representations, no decision was taken. (xi) On 06.01.2016, the CGM (P&C), IDCO, informed the petitioner that the building plan required prior approval from the Panchayat/Urban Local Body (ULB) and returned the proposal. Subsequently, on 14.01.2016, the Estate Officer issued a notice directing the petitioner to Page 3 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36 vacate the premises within fifteen days, failing which she would be forcibly evicted. (xii) The petitioner challenged the eviction order in OPP Appeal No. 03 of 2016. By order dated 30.03.2017, the Collector, Jajpur, directed IDCO to provide the requisite infrastructure and granted the petitioner three months to establish her unit. (xiii) In compliance, the petitioner applied to the BDO, Dharmasala, on 02.06.2017 for approval of the building plan. Upon receiving no response, she sent reminders dated 03.07.2017 and 24.07.2017. (xiv) In the absence of any action, the petitioner submitted a representation to IDCO on 16.08.2017 seeking permission to proceed with construction without formal approval. (xv) In the absence of any action, the petitioner submitted a representation to IDCO on 16.08.2017 seeking permission to proceed with construction without formal approval. (xvi) The petitioner thereafter filed WP(C) No. 3436 of 2021 before this Court, seeking appropriate directions in view of the prolonged
Decision
inaction. By order dated 01.02.2021, the writ petition was disposed of as premature, noting that there was no fresh cancellation order at that stage. However, this Court directed the competent authorities to take an appropriate decision on the petitioner’s building plan. (xvii) However, by letter dated 29.04.2021, the BDO informed the petitioner that the earlier submissions were not traceable and requested fresh submission. The petitioner complied on 18.05.2021 and followed up with multiple reminders, but no further action was taken. Page 4 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36 (xviii) As the matter remained pending, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation on 04.12.2023 to the CMD, IDCO, highlighting the prolonged inaction of the BDO, Dharmasala. (xix) In response, the BDO, by letter dated 08.12.2023, instructed the petitioner to submit a building plan in accordance with revised guidelines issued by the PR & DW Department vide notification dated 07.06.2018. The petitioner complied with the directive and submitted the requisite documents on 18.01.2024. (xx) Despite these efforts, on 19.06.2024, certain individuals claiming to be officials from the Divisional Office of IDCO visited the site and instructed the petitioner to vacate the land within fifteen days, warning that failure to do so would result in forcible eviction and destruction of the building materials stored at the site. She was further informed that the plot would be allotted to another party. (xxi) Faced with administrative apathy and the imminent threat of dispossession, the petitioner, left with no other efficacious remedy, has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court seeking appropriate relief. II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: (i) The petitioner asserted that the land in question was allotted to her on an outright purchase basis upon full payment of the consideration amount, and that the lease deed executed in her favourcontains no Page 5 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36 clauseauthorizing cancellation on the ground of non-utilisation, making the subsequent action of IDCO untenable in law. (ii) The petitioner asserted that she had submitted a representation before the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, IDCO, requesting revocation of the cancellation order; however, despite the lapse of a considerable period, no decision has been taken on her application, reflecting administrative inaction and denial of fair opportunity. (iii) The petitioner contended that no formal order of cancellation was ever served on her, and IDCO has failed to produce any such order in its counter affidavit, thereby casting serious doubt not only on the legality and even the very existence of the purported cancellation. (iv) The petitioner contended that the alleged cancellation order dated 02.08.2014, assuming it exists, is vitiated by violation of the principles of natural justice, as the same was passed without affording her any opportunity of personal hearing despite her reply to the show cause notice and repeated engagement with the authorities. (v) The petitioner maintained that the subsequent conduct of the IDCO authorities contradicts their own stand regarding cancellation, as she was repeatedly asked to submit a building plan for approval, including by letter dated 06.01.2016, which would not have arisen had the allotment stood cancelled, thereby indicating that the cancellation was never acted upon or stood implicitly revoked. (vi) The petitioner highlighted that despite having submitted all relevant documents and reminders since 2017, her building plan remains pending before the Block Development Officer, Dharmasala, and no Page 6 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36 formal decision has been communicated to her, thereby stalling the industrial project for no fault of hers. (vii) The petitioner contended that the impugned cancellation is procedurally flawed, as no field inquiry or site inspection was conducted prior to passing the order, and the decision appears to have been taken arbitrarily, without verifying the petitioner’s actual constraints or efforts. (viii) The petitioner further argued that when cancellation is based on the alleged non-utilisation of the land, it is incumbent upon the authority to disclose the alternative use to which the land is proposed to be put; however, in the present case, no such disclosure has been made, rendering the action arbitrary and legally unsustainable. (ix) The petitioner alleged that she has been singled out for adverse action, while several other similarly situated allottees who have not commenced construction or utilisation of their allotted plots have not been proceeded against, thereby violating the constitutional mandate of equality and non-discrimination under Article 14. (x) The petitioner submitted that in view of the foregoing factual and legal infirmities, the alleged cancellation order is arbitrary, unjustified, and legally untenable, and is therefore liable to be quashed in the interest of justice. III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES: 5. The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: Page 7 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36 (i) The petitioner has withheld material and relevant facts with the intent to mislead the Court and secure an order in her favor. This deliberate suppression goes to the root of the matter and renders the present writ petition liable to dismissal for want of bona fides. (ii) Despite taking possession of the allotted plot, the petitioner failed to undertake any industrial activity for the purpose for which the land had been allotted. She also did not obtain the requisite approval of the building plan from the competent authority or commence construction work within the stipulated period. In view of this non- compliance, IDCO issued two separate show cause notices to the petitioner on 01.10.2011 and 01.03.2014. (iii) Upon consideration of her replies, which were found to be unsatisfactory, IDCO issued a letter dated 02.08.2014 cancelling the allotment. The cancellation was made after taking into account all relevant materials and in accordance with the terms of the allotment. (iv) The petitioner did not vacate the premises within the period of fifteen days as required under the cancellation letter. Consequently, proceedings under Section 4(1) of the Orissa Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 were initiated by filing EUO Case No. 1274/14 before the Estate Officer, IDCO. The Estate Officer, by order dated 10.02.2016 under Section 5(2) of the said Act, authorised the Divisional Head, Jajpur Road Division, to carry out the eviction. (v) The petitioner challenged the eviction order by filing OPP Appeal Case No. 03/2016 before the Collector, Jajpur. The Collector, by order Page 8 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36 dated 30.03.2017, directed IDCO to provide infrastructure facilities and allowed the petitioner three months’ time to establish the industrial unit. The order specifically noted that if the petitioner failed to comply within the said period, IDCO could resume eviction proceedings. (vi) Even after receiving this extension, the petitioner did not commence industrial activity on the plot. Instead, she continued to correspond with IDCO about approval of her building plan, despite being explicitly advised by IDCO, through letters dated 06.01.2016 and 13.01.2016, to obtain such approval from the Panchayat or Urban Local Body, in accordance with the applicable procedure. (vii) The petitioner was in breach of Clause 3 of the Lease Deed, which mandates that the lessee must implement the project and commence commercial production within three years of taking possession. She also violated Clause 17 of the Allotment Letter, which imposes the same obligation, and Clause 47 of the Lease Deed, which permits cancellation of the lease and eviction in case of any breach. Despite these contractual obligations, the petitioner failed to utilise the land for the intended purpose. (viii) On 19.06.2024, IDCO lawfully conducted the eviction in the presence of the Additional Tahasildar and Executive Magistrate, Dharmasala, and the Officer-in-Charge of Dharmasala Police Station. This material development was not disclosed by the petitioner in the present writ petition, which is a serious omission. Page 9 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36 (ix) The lease has already been cancelled following due process, eviction has been completed, and the land has been resumed by IDCO. The petitioner has failed to comply with contractual obligations despite being granted multiple opportunities over a span of more than a decade. In light of these facts, and considering the suppression of material events, the writ petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. IV. EXAMINATION OF THE LEGAL MATRIX: 6. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and duly perused the materials placed on record. 7. 8. The principal issue that arises for determination in the present writ petition is whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Petitioner is entitled to a direction restraining the Opposite Parties from evicting her from the allotted industrial plot and mandating approval of the building plan submitted by her. Before proceeding to examine the rival contentions, it is imperative to first consider the relevant timelines and obligations imposed upon the Petitioner under the terms of the lease deed and the original allotment. 9. As per Clause 3 of the registered lease deed dated 16.03.2009, read with Clause 17 of the allotment letter dated 24.10.2008, the Petitioner was under a binding obligation to implement the proposed industrial project and commence commercial production within a period of three years from the date of taking possession of the land. Page 10 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36 10. It is not in dispute that possession of the allotted land was handed over to the Petitioner on 16.03.2009. Accordingly, the Petitioner was required to not only obtain requisite approvals, including sanction of the building plan, but also complete construction and operationalize the unit on or before 15.03.2012. 11. However, the record reveals a consistent and unexplained failure on the part of the Petitioner to act upon the foundational requirements of the allotment. Despite the passage of several years, the Petitioner neither obtained approval for the building plan from the competent authority nor undertook any construction activity on the subject plot. No plausible justification has been offered for such prolonged inaction. 12. In light of this continued non-compliance, IDCO issued show cause notices dated 01.10.2011 and 01.03.2014 calling upon the Petitioner to explain the delay in implementation of the project and to show cause why the allotment should not be cancelled. Upon consideration of her reply, which was found to be unsatisfactory, IDCO proceeded to cancel the allotment by order dated 02.08.2014. 13. Despite cancellation, the Petitioner did not voluntarily surrender possession. This compelled IDCO to initiate proceedings under the provisions of the Odisha Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 for recovery of possession. 14. After following due process, the Estate Officer, IDCO, passed an eviction order under Section 5(1) of the said Act on 14.01.2016. Page 11 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36 Thereafter, on 10.02.2016, an order under Section 5(2) was passed authorising eviction of the Petitioner. 15. Aggrieved by the said orders, the Petitioner preferred OPP Appeal Case No. 03/2016 before the Collector, Jajpur. The said appeal was disposed of vide order dated 30.03.2017, wherein directions were issued to IDCO to provide basic infrastructure, and the Petitioner was required to set up her industrial unit within a further period of three months. Despite this, the Petitioner once again failed to adhere to the extended timeline and undertook no substantial steps towards project implementation. 16. In view of such persistent non-compliance, the eviction order was finally executed on 19.06.2024 in the presence of the jurisdictional Executive Magistrate and with the assistance of police authorities, in accordance with law. 17. In view of the foregoing, it is evident that the Petitioner has failed to comply with the express conditions stipulated in the allotment and lease documents, including the crucial requirement to commence commercial production within the prescribed period. The repeated defaults, coupled with the lack of any substantive action even after being granted opportunities by both IDCO and the appellate authority, negate any equitable consideration in her favour. V. CONCLUSION: 18. In light of the above discussion, this Court finds no merit in the present Writ Petition. Page 12 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36 19. The material placed on record establishes that the Petitioner repeatedly failed to comply with the express and essential conditions of the allotment and lease, particularly the obligation to commence commercial production within the stipulated timeframe. Despite being afforded several opportunities over an extended period, including after issuance of show cause notices, cancellation of allotment, initiation of eviction proceedings, and even upon being granted a further extension by the appellate authority, the Petitioner did not take any meaningful or concrete steps towards setting up the proposed industrial unit. 20. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. 21. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. (Dr.S.K. Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 20th June, 2025/ Page 13 of 13