The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36 W.P.(C) No.31252 of 2023 (In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950). M/s. Adyasa Industries, Bhubaneswar …. Petitioner(s) -versus- Orissa Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation, Bhubaneswar & Ors. …. Opposite Party (s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Petitioner(s) For Opposite Party (s) : : Mr. S.K. Sarangi, Sr. Advocate Along with Associates Mr.P.K.Mohanty, Senior Advocate Along with associates (for IDCO) CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-29.04.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-20.06.2025 Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J. 1. In the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner seeks quashing of the eviction order dated 18.08.2023 passed by the Estate Officer, IDCO. 2. The Petitioner also seeks a direction for regularization of the land allotted to it, along with provision of necessary infrastructure to operate its cold storage unit. Page 1 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36 I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: (i) The Petitioner is a proprietorship concern, represented through its
Legal Reasoning
Proprietor, Sri Adwaitya Ballav Mohanty. (ii) With the intention of establishing a cold storage unit as a means of livelihood, Sri Adwaitya Mohanty approached the District Industries Centre for registration as a small-scale industrial unit. (iii) Upon due consideration of his application, the General Manager, District Industries Centre, granted provisional registration in favour of the Petitioner on 15.12.2009 for establishing a cold storage unit. Following the grant of registration, the Petitioner approached the Opposite Party No.1 for allotment of land for the said purpose. (iv) Based on the recommendation of the General Manager, the District Industries Centre, IDCO allotted land to the Petitioner’s unit vide letter dated 09.09.2010, assessing the cost of the land at ₹12,39,000/-, apart from the ground rent and annual infrastructure maintenance charges. (v) Upon taking possession, the Petitioner noticed the existence of a 30 ft wide drain running through the allotted plot. Consequently, expressing unwillingness to proceed with the allotment, he requested an alternative plot by letter dated 13.01.2011. (vi) As no action was taken on the earlier request, the Petitioner again approached IDCO by letter dated 25.04.2011, reiterating his request for allotment of an alternative plot in the same Food Processing Park. (vii) Pursuant to the said request, IDCO allotted a fresh plot of land to the Petitioner vide letter dated 20.09.2011. In the meantime, having paid Page 2 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36 ₹12,39,000/- along with incidental charges, the Petitioner executed a Lease Deed with IDCO on 23.11.2011. (viii) In 2014, the Divisional Head, IDCO, issued a letter dated 23.06.2014 directing eviction from the land, citing non-utilisation of the plot. (ix) The Petitioner, along with other similarly placed allottees, submitted a representation dated 20.07.2018 seeking redressal of drainage and road-related problems, stating that the lack of basic infrastructure had prevented commencement of industrial activity. Pursuant thereto, IDCO, by letter dated 20.09.2019, shared a revised drawing and sketch map indicating the road and drain layout. (x) Despite such assurances, no concrete steps were taken. After a considerable lapse of time, IDCO responded to the Petitioner’s application vide email dated 13.02.2020, stating that action was being initiated for provision of infrastructure. (xi) Meanwhile, IDCO issued a notice inviting tender for development of the area through Invitation for Bids dated 17.07.2023, followed by a Corrigendum dated 04.08.2023 and a second Corrigendum dated 11.08.2023. The Petitioner later came to know that contractors had submitted bids in response. (xii) During this period, the Petitioner also paid various dues, including interest, amounting to ₹32,494 on 01.08.2017. (xiii) While matters stood thus, the Petitioner received a Form-B notice dated 18.08.2023 from the Estate Officer, IDCO, fixing 01.09.2023 for appearance and directing him to vacate the premises, failing which eviction proceedings would follow. Page 3 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36 (xiv) Upon receiving the notice, the Petitioner inquired into the matter and discovered that EUO Case No. 1451/2017 had been initiated against him. In response, he submitted an affidavit dated 31.08.2023 detailing the steps undertaken toward setting up the unit and the challenges encountered. (xv) Aggrieved by the eviction order dated 18.08.2023 and the subsequent communications, the Petitioner is seeking this Court’s intervention to quash the same in the present writ petition. II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: 4. (i) Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: The Petitioner submitted that IDCO was duty-bound to provide basic infrastructure, including proper drainage and road connectivity, for the smooth establishment and functioning of the cold storage unit. However, without fulfilling these essential obligations, IDCO threatened eviction, which was arbitrary, legally untenable, and warrants interference by this Court. (ii) The Petitioner asserted that he was not in default and had paid the full amount of ₹12,39,000/- as fixed by the Opposite Parties, along with other incidental charges. (iii) The Petitioner further submitted that while the Opposite Parties continued to raise demands towards ground rent and maintenance charges, they simultaneously threatened him with eviction, which reflected a contradictory and unreasonable approach. Page 4 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36 (iv) The Petitioner contended that a demand of ₹60,942/- was raised by the Opposite Parties without addressing his genuine infrastructural grievances, thereby rendering the demand arbitrary and unjust. (v) The Petitioner further submitted that IDCO acted in a mala fide manner by issuing a show-cause notice even before expiry of the stipulated time period under the Lease Deed. As per Clause 3 of the lease, the industry was to commence within three years from the date of possession. Since possession was taken in September 2011, the issuance of the show- cause notice on 20.01.2014 was premature and reflected non- application of mind. (vi) The Petitioner stated that he had arranged funds from various individuals and had also approached Union Bank of India, which agreed in principle to extend need-based financial assistance, subject to issuance of a no-objection certificate from IDCO. However, IDCO’s refusal to grant permission to mortgage the property prevented him from obtaining the required financial assistance, thereby contributing significantly to the delay in setting up the unit. (vii) The Petitioner submitted that no appeal lay against the impugned order dated 18.08.2023, thereby necessitating the present writ petition. The eviction was neither just nor proper. (viii) The Petitioner submitted that the allotment had been made on his request, since the originally allotted plot had a 30 ft wide drain running through it. However, even in the alternative plot, drainage issues persisted. The Opposite Parties failed to take corrective measures until August 2023, when tenders were invited for upgrading the Khurda Industrial Estate, confirming that proper drainage facility was not Page 5 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36 previously in place and that industrial construction was thus unfeasible. The Petitioner’s plot was located at the base of a hill, and construction could not commence unless rainwater discharge was properly regulated. (ix) The Petitioner submitted that the land was allotted in September 2011, towards the end of the monsoon season, and heavy rains rendered construction unfeasible. His application to the BDA for building plan approval was rejected due to the absence of a functional drainage system. Despite Condition No. 20 of the allotment letter and Clause 3 of the Lease Deed, it was incumbent on the Opposite Parties to provide basic infrastructure, particularly drainage, without which even a boundary wall could not be constructed. Consequently, the cancellation of the lease dated 23.06.2014 was unjustified and did not reflect the ground realities. (x) The Petitioner denied the allegation that the representation dated 20.07.2018 was an afterthought. He submitted that the letter dated 20.09.2019, enclosing a sketch map, was never implemented by the Opposite Parties. The map showed that the plot lay at the base of a hill, necessitating adequate rainwater discharge measures before construction. No road or drainage facility was provided until 2023, when steps were belatedly initiated through a tender process. (xi) The Petitioner submitted that no construction could be undertaken until issuance of the tender notice dated 04.08.2023, followed by a corrigendum dated 11.08.2023. This fortified the Petitioner’s contention that no steps had been taken to provide drainage or other essential infrastructure until August 2023. Page 6 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36 (xii) The Petitioner submitted that the MSME Department had granted a relaxation period of three years for incentives vide notification dated 13.03.2023. The said benefit was squarely applied to the Petitioner’s case, as he was unable to commence operations solely due to inaction and failure on the part of the Opposite Parties. Accordingly, the Petitioner was entitled to avail the benefit of the extended period. (xiii) The Petitioner submitted that due to the non-cooperation of the Opposite Parties, he was unable to utilise the property despite having invested over ₹12,00,000. In the process, he lost the most productive years of his youth and remained deprived of a sustainable livelihood having altered his position in reliance on the allotment and made substantial financial investment. In these circumstances, the Opposite Parties were estopped from cancelling the allotment and were bound to provide the requisite infrastructure to enable the Petitioner to operationalise his unit. 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: (i) As per Condition 20 of the allotment letter and Clause 3 of the Lease Deed, the petitioner was required to commence industrial activity on the allotted plot within three years. However, due to failure to utilise the land, a show-cause notice was issued on 20.01.2014, followed by cancellation of the allotment on 23.06.2014. Thereafter, eviction proceedings were initiated under EUO Case No. 1451/2017. Upon hearing both parties and examining the records, the Estate Officer, by order dated 18.08.2023, declared the petitioner an unauthorised Page 7 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36 occupant and directed eviction under Section 5(1) of the Orissa Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972, granting 15 days to vacate the premises. (ii) The Orissa Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972 provides for an appellate remedy, which the petitioner failed to exhaust before approaching this Court. The present writ petition is, therefore, premature. (iii) The petitioner accepted the alternative plot and executed a lease deed on an ‘as is where is’ basis in terms of Clause 16 of the allotment letter and Clause 14 of the Lease Deed, which excluded claims for infrastructure such as drainage or relocation of utility lines. (iv) Despite taking possession in November 2011, the petitioner failed to initiate construction or seek revocation of cancellation for years. An affidavit submitted by the petitioner on 15.01.2018, acknowledging the land condition and undertaking to begin construction within six months, demonstrates his knowledge of the site and consent to proceed accordingly. Representations made in 2018–2019 regarding drainage appear to be afterthoughts. (v) Despite cancellation and pending eviction proceedings, IDCO responded to the petitioner’s representation in good faith and shared infrastructure plans by letter dated 20.09.2019. However, this did not nullify the earlier valid cancellation. (vi) The tender issued in August 2023 for infrastructure upgradation at Khordha Industrial Estate does not imply a total lack of infrastructure. Several other units, such as Oricon and SMS Group, were operating Page 8 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36 successfully. The petitioner’s allegation of infrastructural inadequacy is baseless. (vii) It was the petitioner’s duty to arrange finances. IDCO’s refusal to allow mortgage post-cancellation was justified. The Estate Officer has already declared the petitioner an unauthorized occupant, and therefore IDCO is under no obligation to permit mortgage. (viii) The MSME Department’s relaxation notification dated 13.03.2023 does not apply, as 13 years have elapsed since the original allotment. The petitioner is, therefore, not entitled to benefit from the said notification. (ix) IDCO has acted lawfully and in public interest. The petitioner, by remaining inactive and attempting to retain valuable industrial land without development, has violated the lease terms. The writ petition is devoid of merit and should be dismissed. IV. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 6. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed on record. The present Writ Petition has been filed seeking, inter alia, quashing of the eviction order dated 18.08.2023 passed by the Estate Officer, IDCO under Section 5(1) of the Orissa Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972, and a consequential direction to the Opposite Parties to regularise the allotment made in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner also prays for the provision of requisite infrastructure, including drainage and road connectivity, to enable commencement of industrial activity on the allotted plot. Page 9 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36 8. 9. To determine whether the petitioner is entitled to relief, it is necessary to examine the governing legal framework and the contractual stipulations set out in the Lease Deed and the allotment letter. Section 5(1) of the Orissa Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972, empowers the Estate Officer to order eviction upon being satisfied, after due notice, hearing, and examination of material on record, that the premises are in unauthorised occupation. Such an order must be reasoned and must specify the date by which possession is to be surrendered. 10. In the present case, allotment of land was governed by the terms of the allotment letter and the Lease Deed executed on 23.11.2011. Clause 3 of the Lease Deed obligated the lessee to commence civil construction within six months and to initiate industrial activity within three years from the date of possession. Condition 20 of the allotment letter similarly stipulated these timelines and further provided that non- compliance would invite appropriate action, including cancellation of the allotment. 11. 12. Clause 16 of the allotment letter, read with Clause 14 of the Lease Deed, specifically recorded that the land was allotted on an ‘as is where is’ basis. It further stipulated that no request would be entertained for site filling or relocation of overhead/underground utility lines. The legal position on ‘as is where is’ clauses is well-settled. These stipulations indicate that the lessee accepts the property in its existing condition, including all inherent defects and limitations. It is incumbent upon the lessee to undertake due diligence and make an informed Page 10 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36 choice before accepting the allotment. The principle of caveat emptor is applicable in such circumstances. 13. In Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority v. Raghu Nath Gupta1, the Supreme Court held that where a lessee accepts allotment on an “as is where is” basis, subsequent claims regarding infrastructure deficiencies cannot be sustained, having regard to the lessee’s awareness of site conditions at the time of execution. The pertinent excerpt reads as follows: “14. We notice that the respondents had accepted the commercial plots with open eyes, subject to the abovementioned conditions. Evidently, the commercial plots were allotted on “as-is-where-is” basis. The allottees would have ascertained the facilities available at the time of auction and after having accepted the commercial plots on “as-is- where-is” basis, they cannot be heard to contend that PUDA had not provided the basic amenities like parking, lights, roads, water, sewerage, etc. If the allottees were not interested in taking the commercial plots on “as-is-where-is” basis, they should not have accepted the allotment and after having accepted the allotment on “as-is-where-is” basis, they are estopped from contending that the basic amenities like parking, lights, roads, water, sewerage, etc. were not provided by PUDA when the plots were allotted. Over and above, the facts would clearly indicate that there was not much delay on the part of PUDA to provide those facilities as well. As noted, the electrical works and health works were completed by 24- 12-2002 and 22-11-2002 respectively and all the facilities like parking, lights, roads, water, sewerage, etc. were also provided.” 1 (2012) 8 SCC 197. Page 11 of 14 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36 However, it is equally well-settled that such clauses cannot be utilised as a shield to conceal material facts, nor can they absolve the lessor of obligations in cases involving fraud or active concealment. Reverting to the facts of the case, the petitioner, a proprietorship concern of Sri Adwaitya Ballav Mohanty, was provisionally registered in 2009 for setting up a cold storage unit. An initial plot was allotted in September 2010, but the petitioner sought alternate allotment due to the presence of a 30 ft wide drainage channel. A fresh allotment was made in September 2011, and upon payment of ₹12,39,000/-, a Lease Deed was executed on 23.11.2011. A show-cause notice was issued on 20.01.2014, and the allotment was cancelled by letter dated 23.06.2014 on grounds of non-compliance with the terms of Clause 3 of the Lease Deed and Condition 20 of the allotment letter. The petitioner has contended that infrastructural deficiencies, particularly the absence of a drainage system and road access, rendered the land unfit for development and led to rejection of his building plan by the Bhubaneswar Development Authority. A perusal of the record indicates that the petitioner submitted an affidavit dated 15.01.2018, nearly four years after cancellation, wherein he undertook to commence construction within a period of six months. However, no steps were taken in furtherance of the said undertaking. Consequently, eviction proceedings were initiated under EUO Case No. 1451/2017, culminating in the impugned eviction order dated 18.08.2023, passed by the Estate Officer upon affording the petitioner due and adequate opportunity of hearing. Page 12 of 14 19. The allotment in question was clearly governed by the “as is where is” Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36 stipulation, as set out in Clause 16 of the allotment letter and Clause 14 of the Lease Deed. These provisions unequivocally excluded any claim for site development, drainage facilities, or relocation of utility infrastructure. It was therefore incumbent upon the petitioner to exercise adequate due diligence prior to accepting the allotment, particularly in view of the fact that the initial allotment had been surrendered on account of similar drainage-related concerns. The petitioner’s decision to proceed with the alternate allotment, fully aware of the surrounding circumstances, was a conscious and informed choice that precludes any claim for subsequent relief on the same grounds. 20. The petitioner’s grievance regarding the lack of drainage infrastructure also appears to be a belated justification rather than a contemporaneous objection. As noted, the cancellation occurred in June 2014, whereas representations concerning infrastructural deficiencies began surfacing only in 2018 and thereafter. The delay in raising these issues, coupled with the petitioner’s affidavit acknowledging the site condition, reinforces the inference that such representations were afterthoughts, lacking in bona fides. 21. The petitioner has also sought to rely on the fact that IDCO floated tenders in 2023 for infrastructure upgradation in the industrial estate. However, this development does not absolve the petitioner of his obligations under the lease. The initiation of development works by IDCO at a later stage cannot retrospectively justify the petitioner’s Page 13 of 14 prolonged inaction or nullify the consequences flowing from the earlier Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36 cancellation. CONCLUSION: Having considered the matter in its entirety, this Court finds no infirmity in the actions of the Opposite Parties. The Petitioner’s conduct, marked by long-standing default, unexplained delay, and failure to either challenge or remedy the cancellation, disentitles it to the equitable reliefs sought in this Writ Petition. The terms and conditions of the lease and allotment letter were neither vague nor conditional and were voluntarily accepted by the Petitioner with full knowledge of their implications.
Decision
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. V. 22. 23. 24. (Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 20th June, 2025 Page 14 of 14