The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.35944 OF 2021 In the matter of an application under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. ……………… Bhaskar Rout …. Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha & Others …. Opposite Parties For Petitioner :Mr. P.K. Satapathy, Adv. For Opp. Parties : Mr. P.K. Panda, Addl. Standing Counsel Ms. D. Mahapatra, Adv. (Opp. Party No.5) PRESENT: THE HONBLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing:08.01.2025 and Date of Judgment:26.03.2025 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J. 1. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging the decision of the Tenement Committee dated // 2 // 14.12.2020 so communicated by the Government-Opp. Party No.1 vide its letter dt.30.06.2021 under Annexure-1 and with a further prayer to direct Opp. Opp. Parties to transfer the ownership of the tenement (Z/4, Khapuria Labour Colony) in favour of the Petitioner as per Government Resolution dated 24.06.1987. 2. It is the case of the Petitioner that Petitioner while working under the Management of M/s. Orissa Textiles and Steels Limited, Naya Bazar, Cuttack as an Industrial Worker, he was allotted with Industrial Tenement No.Z/4 in Nuapada Labour Colony by the Labour Commissioner, Orissa communicated vide letter dt.24.09.1977. Such allotment of the quarter was made under the provisions of Orissa Industrial Housing Act, 1966 and Orissa Industrial Housing Rules, 1969. Such provisional allotment made on 24.09.1977 under Annexure-2, was made final vide allotment Order No.17320 dt.21.12.1977 under Annexure- 3. Petitioner accordingly was handed over the possession of the tenement in terms of letter dt.28.12.1977 under Annexure-4. Page 2 of 39 // 3 // 2.1. It is contended that while continuing in possession over the tenement in question, Government in the Department of Housing and Urban Development vide its resolution dt.24.06.1987 under Annexure-10, decided to transfer the ownership of such tenements free of cost to eligible and bonafide occupants subject to the following terms and conditions, morefully described under Para-3. 3. Government, after careful consideration, have been pleased to decide to transfer the ownership of the tenements free of cost to eligible and bona fide occupants subject terms and the conditions. following to (a ) The ownership of the tenements shall be transferred to the Industrial labourers free of cost subject to payment of all outstanding arrear rent by the occupants. (i) Such ownership of tenements will be transferred even to those who were industrial labourers at the itme of original allotment but have subsequently been promoted in the same or any other industrial organization and do not come in the category of industrial labourer at any other industrial organization and do not come in the category of industrial labourers at the time of transfer of ownership, provided further that such a period should be in continuous possession of the tenement allotted to him. (ii) In case eviction proceedings are initiated any any occupant, the merits of each case will be examined by the Committee so formulated by this resolution for recommendation to Government. (iii) The case of legal heirs of the original occupants will be considered on merit by the Committee subject to payment of arrear rent and continuous possession by the legal heirs. Page 3 of 39 // 4 // (iv) If an eligible industrial worker has retired from active service his case will be considered for transfer of ownership by the Committee on merit. (b) For transfer of ownership a committee will be formed to recommend the names of eligible Industrial Labourers or their legal heirs, as the case may be, to the Government for final decision. (i) The Committee will consist of Labour Commissioner, as Chairman the concerned Collector of District under whose jurisdiction the tenements are is nominated representative as located, or he, the Director, Housing-cum-Deputy member and Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department as member-convenor. (c) The annual rent. Will be paid by the transferee. Government will not undertake any repairs etc. of the tenements henceforward. (d) The land on which the tenements are located shall be transferred on lease to the transferee on 99 years lease basis under the provisions of Rule 8(I) of Orissa Government Land Settlement Rules, 1983 free of cost. (e) The land including the area of tenements, share in public bath place and lavatory shall not be more than Ac.0.04 for each transferee. (f) Bath Place lavatory and other general public utility places which are used jointly by the occupant of the tenement will be recorded jointly in the record of rights. storeyed tenements are (g) Where double constructed and their ownership will be transferred to two different persons, the land on which this building stands will be recorded jointly in the favour of the two transferees in the record or rights. The actual (h) transfer of ownership will be reckoned from the date on which a person takes over possession of the tenement after formal transfer of the ownership in his favour. (i) No transferee can sell or otherwise transfer the tenement for ten years from the date of actual possession as prescribed at (h) above. However, after the expiry of ten years the transferee can sell or otherwise transfer the tenement with prior approval Page 4 of 39 // 5 // of Government in Housing & Urban Development Department. (j) Common places like community centres, roads, parks, shopping complexes or shops will be under the control of local Municipality/NAC and or Development Authority. These lands will be handed over to these Authorities under the prevailing provisions of law. The stamp duty and registration fees will be (k) paid by transferee and no concession will be granted in this regard. The transfer of ownership in case of illegal (l) occupants of the tenements will be decided with due regard to the provisions of this resolution by the Committee so appointed by this Resolution subject to approval of the Government in Housing & Urban Development Department. Revenue Department (m) Housing & Urban Development Department will inform General Administration Department as the case may be the names and address of transferees with all other details to facilitate these Departments to enter into agreement with the t transferees to hand over the Pattas etc. or The illegal occupants of the tenements will be (n) evicted under the provisions of Orissa Industrial Housing Rules, 1969. The concerned Collectors, under whose (o) jurisdiction such tenements are located will be declared Commissioner under Section 4 of Orissa Industrial Housing Act, 1966 to initiate action against the illegal occupants. This resolution will come into force from the (p) date of publication in the Orissa Gazette.” 2.2. It is contended that since by the time resolution under Annexure-10 was issued on 24.06.1987, Petitioner in terms of the final allotment order issued under Annexure-3 and the possession handed over in terms of letter dt.28.12.1977 under Annexure-4 was the owner of the Page 5 of 39 // 6 // tenement in question and was in possession, in terms of the provisions contained in the resolution dt.24.06.1987, Petitioner became eligible and entitled to get the benefit of transfer of the tenement in his favour free of cost. However, when the allotment made in favour of the Petitioner way back in the year 1977 was cancelled vide
Decision
order dt.05.01.1990 of the Assistant Housing Commissioner, Cuttack and vide another order of the same date, the tenement was allotted in favour of the private Opp. Party No.5, Petitioner challenging such action of the Opp. Parties approached this Court in OJC No.5862 of 1991. 2.3. It is contended that this Court vide order dt.12.05.1995 disposed of the Writ Petition inter alia with the following direction. “ Recording such submissions, we cancel the order of allotment made in favour of Opposite Party No.4 in terms of Annexure-5. Possession of the tenement should be restored to the Petitioner thereafter, after opposite party no.4 vacate by the end of October, 1995. It is made clear, that this order will not prevent the authorities concerned to initiate proper proceeding for cancellation for any act committed by the Petitioner after the possession is restored to him. The Petitioner after the possession is restored to him. The PØtion is disposed of accordingly. No costs. It is made further clear that both the Page 6 of 39 // 7 // Petitioner and opposite Party No.4 will appear the Commissioner, Housing-cum-Labour before Commissioner on 11th of October, 1995 to avoid issue of fresh notice. 2.4. It is contended that in terms of the order passed by this Court on 12.05.1995, Petitioner was again handed over with the possession of the tenement on 03.04.1996 as reflected from Annexure-12 series. 2.5. It is contended that after restoring back possession in favour of the Petitioner and while complying the direction of this Court so passed on 12.05.1995, Petitioner was issued with a notice by the Addl. District Magistrate, Cuttack on 14.03.2002 under Annexure-13, inter alia to appear on 23.03.2002 in the office chamber of Collector, Cuttack to solve the issue in question. 2.6. It is contended that in terms of the notice issued on 14.03.2002 under Annexure-13, Petitioner duly appeared before the Committee and submitted his representation on 26.03.2002. 2.7. It is contended that the Committee after hearing the Petitioner and Opp. Party No.5, when took a Page 7 of 39 // 8 // decision to cancel the allotment made in favour of the Petitioner and to allot the same in favour of Opp. Party No.5 vide order dt.05.07.2002 and a notice was issued accordingly on 16.08.2002 to vacate the tenement, Petitioner being aggrieved by such action of the Opp. Party in cancelling the allotment and directing him to vacate the tenement moved the learned District Judge, Cuttack in Misc. Appeal No.131 of 2002. But learned District Judge vide his judgment dt.21.02.2005 when dismissed the appeal on contest, Petitioner being aggrieved by such cancellation of allotment of the tenement on 05.07.2002 and judgment dt.21.02.2005, approached this Court by filing W.P.(C ) No.3274 of 2005. 2.8. It is contended that this Court vide order dt.03.01.2018 under Annexure-15, while setting aside the order dt.05.07.2002 and order passed by the appellate Court on 21.02.2005 in Misc. Appeal No. 131 of 2002, remitted the matter to the Tenement Committee Page 8 of 39 // 9 // for fresh consideration involving the Petitioner vide order dt.03.01.2018. 2.9. It is contended that application filed by the private Opp. Party No.5 in Misc. Case No.478 of 2018 for modification of the order dt.03.01.2018 and to allow him to participate before the Tenement Committee was also not entertained while disposing the Misc. Case vide order dt.29.01.2018. 2.10. It is contended that on the face of the order passed initially by this Court on 12.05.1995 in OJC No.5862 of 1991 and order passed on 03.01.2018 in W.P.(C ) No.3274 of 2005, the Tenement Committee headed by the Labour Commissioner, Odisha as its Chairman, in its decision dt.14.12.2020 under Annexure-1, decided to cancel the allotment of the tenement so made in favour of the Petitioner and to evict him from the said tenement. The said order passed by the Tenement Committee was communicated vide letter dt.30.06.2021 under Annexure-1 and the present Writ Page 9 of 39 // 10 // Petition has been filed inter alia challenging such order passed by the Tenement Committee under Annexure-1. 2.11. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner vehemently contended that since the tenement in question was allotted in favour of the Petitioner vide letter of allotment dt.24.09.1977 under Annexure-2, as the Petitioner at the relevant point of time was an Industrial Worker and such provisional allotment was made final vide allotment order dt.21.12.1977 under Annexure-3 with delivery of possession vide letter dt.28.12.1977 under Annexure-4, in view of the resolution issued by the Housing and Urban Development Department on 24.06.1987 under Annexure-10. Petitioner became eligible for transfer of the tenement in his favour. 2.12. But without proper appreciation of the nature of allotment made in favour of the Petitioner and the stipulation contained in resolution dt.24.06.1987 under Annexure-10, when the tenement allotted in favour of the Petitioner was cancelled vide order Page 10 of 39 // 11 // dt.05.10.1990 and the same was allotted in favour private Opp. Party No.5 vide another order issued on 05.01.1990, the matter was carried to this Court in OJC NO.5862 of 1991. 2.13. This Court vide order dt.12.05.1995 while setting aside the order of cancellation directed for restoring the possession of the tenement in favour of the Petitioner. In terms of the said order, Petitioner was handed over with the possession of the tenement on 03.04.1996 as found from Annexure-12 series. However, while complying the direction of this Court so passed in OJC No.5862 of 1991, when the Tenement Committee in its proceeding dt.05.07.2002 under Annexure-16 series cancelled the allotment and accordingly notice of eviction was issued on 16.08.2002 vide Annexure-16 series, Petitioner challenging such decision of the Tenement Committee dt.05.07.2002 and the notice issued on 16.08.2002, approached the appellate authority i.e. the learned District Judge, Cuttack in Misc. Appeal No.131 of 2002. Page 11 of 39 // 12 // 2.14. Learned District Judge vide his judgment dt.21.02.2005 when dismissed the appeal by confirming the cancellation, Petitioner again approached this Court challenging the cancellation of the allotment and so also the decision of the appellate Court in W.P.(C ) No.3274 of 2005. This Court vide order dt.03.01.2018 under Annexure-15 while setting aside the order of cancellation as well as the notice of eviction and the order passed by the appellate Court remitted back the matter to the Tenement Committee for fresh consideration. But without proper appreciation of the nature of allotment made in favour of the Petitioner and the stipulation contained in the resolution dt.24.06.1987 under Annexure-10, the Tenement Committee once again in the proceeding of the meeting dt.14.12.2020 under Annexure-1 decided to cancel the allotment of the Tenement so made in favour of the Petitioner, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present Writ Petition. Page 12 of 39 // 13 // 2.15. It is contended that by the time the tenement was allotted in favour of the Petitioner vide Anenxures-2 & 3, Petitioner which is not disputed, was an Industrial Worker having been in employment in the establishment of M/s. Orissa Textile and Steel Limited. However, the company i.e. M/s. Orissa Textiles and Steel Limited when was divided into two parts during February, 1982, Petitioner continued in employment in the other establishment i.e. M/s. Kalinga Textile Corporation. But while continuing under M/s. Kalinga Textile Corporation, when the management laid off the Petitioner along with others, such action of the management was challenged by the Petitioner and other workmen before the Industrial Tribunal, Orissa, Bhubaneswar in I.D. Case No.4 of 1986. 2.16. Learned Industrial Tribunal vide its award dt.26.09.1986 so published in the Gazettee Extraordinary on 06.11.1986 under Annexure-5, held the action of the Management as illegal and the Page 13 of 39 // 14 // workmen were held entitled to full wages from the date of lay off i.e. 16.01.1984. 2.17. It is contended that in view of the nature of the employment of the Petitioner under Orissa Textiles and Steel Limited and subsequently in the other firm namely; M/s. Kalinga Textile Corporation, Petitioner remained as an industrial worker all through and in terms of the resolution dt.24.06.1987 under Annexure- 10, he became eligible and entitled to get the benefit of transfer of the tenement in his favour. But on the ground that Petitioner is not in continuous possession of the tenement and on the date of issuance of the Resolution he ws not an Industrial Worker, the Tenement Committee vide order dt.05.01.1990 cancelled the allotment so made in favour of the Petitioner. Vide another order of the same date, the tenement was allotted in favour of the private Opp. Party No.5. However, such allotment was in favour of Opp. Party No.5 interfered with by this Court vide its order dt.12.05.1995 in OJC No.5862 of 1991. Page 14 of 39 // 15 // 2.18. On the face of such order passed on 12.05.1995, when the Tenement Committee once again vide its order dt.05.07.2002 took a decision to cancel the allotment and accordingly notice of eviction was issued on 16.08.2002, Petitioner approached the appellate forum, i.e. learned District Judge, Cuttack in Miscellaneous Appeal No.131 of 2002. But the said appeal when was dismissed vide judgment dt.21.02.2005, challenging the order of cancellation dt.05.07.2002 and the judgment dt.21.02.2005, the matter was carried to this Court once again in W.P.(C ) No.3274 of 2005. Even though this Court set aside the order dt.05.07.2002 and so also the judgment dt.21.02.2005 vide its order dt.03.01.2018 under Annexure-15 and remitted the matter for a fresh decision, but the Tenement Committee once again vide the impugned decision dt.14.12.2020, decided to cancel the allotment so made in favour of the Petitioner. 2.19. It is contended that since in terms of the resolution issued by the Government under Annexure- Page 15 of 39 // 16 // 10, Petitioner is entitled for transfer of the tenement in his favour, the decision taken by the Tenement Committee to cancel the allotment in its proceeding dt.14.12.2020 is not sustainable in the eye of law and requires interference of this Court. 2.20. It is also contended that after being given possession in terms of order dt.12.05.1995, Petitioner is continuing in possession over the tenement in question. 3. Ms. Deepali Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the contesting Opp. Party No.5 on the other hand made her submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit. 3.1. It is contended that though there is no dispute that the tenement was provisionally allotted in favour of the Petitioner vide order dt.24.09.1977 under Annexure-2 with final allotment made in his favour vide order dt.21.12.1977 under Annexure-3 and such allotment was made in favour of the Petitioner, he being an industrial worker at the relevant point of time having Page 16 of 39 // 17 // been in employment under M/s. Orissa Textiles and Steel Ltd. But with effect from the year 1980, Opp. Party No.5 who was also an industrial worker working in Orissa Industrial Company, a Government of Orissa undertaking, remained to stay with the Petitioner in the tenement in question. 3.2. It is contended that Orissa Textiles and Steel Ltd. became sick in the year 1982 and the company was closed subsequently. Because of such closure of the company, petitioner left the quarter and went to his native village. However, Opp. Party No.5 remained in possession of the tenement. Since Petitioner left the the quarter in the year 1982 and Opp. Party No.5 remained in occupation of the quarter, in terms of the letter issued by the Asst. Labour Officer on 21.07.1989 under Annexure-A/5, a verification was made with regard to occupation of the tenement. 3.3. As per the said inquiry made by the Asst. Labour Officer, report was submitted vide letter dt.29.08.1989 under Annexure-B/5 inter alia holding that Opp. Party Page 17 of 39 // 18 // No.5 is staying in the tenement since January, 1985. In terms of Annexures-B/5, Opp. Party No.5 was also permitted to deposit the rent of the tenement for the period from January, 1985 to July, 1987 by way of treasury challan which was made on 13.09.1989 under Annexure-C/5. 3.4. It is contended that since on verification, it was found that Petitioner is not in possession of the tenement and Opp. Party No.5 is in possession since January, 1985, Opp. Party No.5 was permitted to pay the rent of the tenement for the period from January, 1985 to July, 1987. Since in the meantime, Government in the Department of Housing and Urban Development vide its resolution dt.24.06.1987 under Annexure-10 decided to transfer the tenement in favour of such industrial workers and economically weaker sections of the community, taking into account the fact that on the date of issuance of such resolution, Petitioner was not in possession of the tenement and basing on Annexure-B/5, it was proved that Opp. Party Page 18 of 39 // 19 // No.5 is in possession of the tenement with effect from January, 1985, after accepting the rent vide Annexure- C/5 for the period from January, 1985 to July, 1987, allotment made in favour of the Petitioner of the tenement was cancelled vide order dt.05.01.1990 under Annexure-D/5. 3.5. After such cancellation of the allotment, vide another order issued on 05.01.1990 under Annexure- E/5, the tenement in question was allotted in favour of Opp. Party No.5. However, such cancellation of the allotment vide order dt.05.01.1990 was interfered with by this Court in its order dt.12.05.1995 in OJC No.5862 of 1991. In terms of the order passed on 12.05.1995, Opp. Party No.5 vacated the quarter on 31.03.1996 and Petitioner was restored back with the possession of the tenement. 3.6. However, while complying the order dt.12.05.1995 and as directed, the Tenement Committee vide its decision dt.05.07.2002 under Annexure-P/5 once again decided to cancel the allotment made in Page 19 of 39 // 20 // favour of the Petitioner on the ground that on the date of notification of the resolution under Annexure-10 on 24.06.1987, Petitioner was not an industrial worker and he was not in continuous possession over the tenement. 3.7. Such decision of the Tenement Committee dt.05.07.2002 and the notice of eviction issued to the Petitioner on 26.08.2002 was assailed before the Appellate Forum i.e. learned District Judge, Cuttack in Misc. Appeal No.131 of 2002. Learned District Judge vide judgment dt.21.02.2005 when dismissed the appeal, challenging such decision of the appellate Court and so also the decision of the Tenement Committee dt.05.07.2002, Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C ) No.3274 of 2005. 3.8. This Court vide order dt.03.01.2018 though set aside the decision of the Tenement Committee dt.05.07.2002 and so also the judgment passed by the District Judge in the appeal in question, but remitted the matter once again to the Tenement committee to take a fresh decision Page 20 of 39 // 21 // 3.9. It is contended that in terms of the order passed by this Court on 03.01.2018, the Tenement Committee for the third time decided to cancel the allotment made in favour of the Petitioner vide its decision dt.14.12.2020 under Annexure-1. Such a decision was taken by the Tenement Committee by giving due opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner as well as to the Present Opp. Party No.5. 3.10. It is contended that such a decision was taken by the Tenement Committee on 14.12.2020 inter alia on the ground that on the date of notification of the Resolution under Annexure-10, since Petitioner was not an industrial worker, in terms of the provisions contained under the Orissa Industrial Housing Act, 1966 and Orissa Industrial Housing Board,1969, Petitioner became an unauthorized occupier of the tenement in question. Since in terms of the resolution issued under Annexure-10, the requirement for transfer of the Tenement, is possession of the industrial worker over the tenement, on the date of such notification and Page 21 of 39 // 22 // admittedly Petitioner as on the date of notification was not in possession of the tenement, the Tenement Committee time and again held the occupation of the Petitioner over the tenement as unauthorized and accordingly cancelled the allotment so made in his favour under Annexures-2 & 3 by making the allotment in favour of Opp. Party No.5. 3.11. Section 6(c) of the Orissa Industrial Housing Act, 1966 reads as follows: 6. Occupation when be unauthorized-For the poses of this Act a person shall, save as otherwise provided in this Act, be deemed to be in unauthorized occupation of any house. deemed to Xxx xxx xxx (c ) has ceased to be an industrial worker 3.12. Similarly, Rule 12(5)(p) of the Orissa Industrial Housing Rules, 1969 reads as follows: 12. Procedure and conditions of allotment- 5. No house shall be allotted to any he abides by worker unless the following conditions, namely: (p) The allottee being an industrial worker within the meaning of Section 6(i) of the Act the tenancy shall cease forthwith as soon as he ceases to be an industrial worker: Page 22 of 39 // 23 // Provided that where a worker dies while in service or goes on transfer , or retires or resigns, or goes on medical leave or where services are terminated by his employer, the allotment may, with the the Housing previous Commissioner continue up to the period as detailed below: approval of (i) in the case of death or transfer, a period not exceeding two months; (ii) in the case of retirement, resignation or termination of service, a period not exceeding one month; and (iii) in the case of medical or ordinary leave, for the period of leave. 3.13. It is contended that in view of the terms and conditions indicated in resolution dt.24.06.1987 under Annexure-10, Petitioner on the date of publication of such resolution on 06.07.1987 in the Gazettee, was not an Industrial Worker and had ceased to be an Industrial Worker. In view of the provisions contained under Section 6 (c) of the Act read with Rule 12(5) (p) of the Rules, his occupation is to be treated as unauthorized occupation over the tenement. Not only that, basing on Annexure-A/5 when an inquiry was made by the Asst. Labour Officer, he found that the present Opp. Party No.5 is staying in the tenement since January, 1985. Therefore as on the date of issuance of the Resolution on Page 23 of 39 // 24 // 06.07.1987, Petitioner in terms of Para 3 (a) (i) was not in continuous possession of the tenement. 3.14. Basing on such report of the Asst. Labour Officer dt.29.08.1989 under Annexure-B/5, Opp. Party No.5 was permitted to deposit the rent of the tenement for the period from January, 1985 to July, 1987 which the Opp. Party No.5 made on 13.09.1989 under Annexure-C/5. Petitioner at no point of time has assailed the report submitted under Annexure-B/5 nor the acceptance of rent from Opp. Party No.5 under Annexure-C/5. 3.15. It is accordingly contended that since on the date of publication of the resolution under Annexure-10, Petitioner had ceased to be an industrial worker and he was not in continuous possession in terms of para 3(a)(i) of the Resolution, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the decision of the Tenement Committee so taken on 14.12.2020 under Annexure-1 and the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on that count. Page 24 of 39 // 25 // 4. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed by Opp. Party No.2. 4.1. It is contended that though the tenement in question was allotted in favour of the Petitioner vide letter of allotment issued under Annexures-2 & 3, but since Petitioner ceased to be an industrial worker because of closure of the company, in view of the provisions contained under Section 6(c ) of the Act and Rule 12(5) (p) of the Rules, Petitioner was found ineligible for transfer of the tenement in his favour in terms of the resolution issued by the Government on 24.06.1987 under Annexure-10. 4.2. It is also contended that as reflected in the resolution dt.24.06.1987 more particularly, para 3(a) (i) of the said resolution for such transfer of the tenement an Industrial worker should be in continuous possession of the tenement allotted to him. Page 25 of 39 // 26 // 4.3. It is contended that since on inquiry made in terms of Annexure-A/5, Asst. Labour Officer vide Annexure- B/5 found that Opp. Party No.5 is staying in the tenement since January, 1985, he was allowed to pay the rent for the period from January, 1985 to July, 1987 under Annexure-C/5. Taking into account the fact that Petitioner is not in continuous possession of the tenement which is a pre-requirement for transfer of the tenement as provided under para 3(a)(i) of the resolution dt.24.06.1987, the Tenement Committee cancelled the allotment made in favour of the Petitioner initially vide order dt.05.01.1990 under Annexure-C/2. Vide another order issued on 05.01.1990 under Annexure-D/2, the tenement was allotted in favour of the present Opp. Party No.5. Petitioner has never assailed the finding of the Enquiry Officer that Petitioner is not in continuous possession of the tenement nor the permission to pay the arrear rent. 4.4. However, when such cancellation of the allotment was interfered with by this Court in its order Page 26 of 39 // 27 // dt.12.05.1995 in OJC No.5862 of 1991, in terms of the said order, the Tenement Committee by giving due opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner as well as Opp. Party No.5 in its proceeding dt.05.07.2002 under Annexure-B/2, decided to cancel the allotment made in favour of the Petitioner inter alia on the ground that on the date of issuance of the resolution under Annexure- 10, Petitioner was not in continuous possession of the tenement. In terms of such decision taken by the Tenement Committee on 05.07.2002 under Annexure- B/2 when notice was issued to the Petitioner vide letter dt.16.08.2002 under Annexure-G/2 to vacate the tenement, Petitioner being aggrieved carried the matter before the learned District Judge, Cuttack in Misc. Appeal No.131 of 2002. However, the said appeal was dismissed by the appellate Court vide judgment dt.21.02.2005. 4.5. Challenging such decision of the Tenement Committee dt.5.07.2002 under Annexure-B/2 and the judgment passed by the learned District Judge, Cuttack Page 27 of 39 // 28 // on 21.02.2005 in Misc. Appeal No.131 of 2002, Petitioner again approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.3274 of 2005. Even though this Court vide order dated 03.01.2018 set aside the decision taken by the Tenement Committee in its proceeding dated 05.07.2002 as well as the order passed by the District Judge, Cuttack in Misc. Appeal No.113 of 2002, but while quashing the decision as well as the judgment, the matter was again remitted to the Tenement Committee to take a fresh decision on the claim of the Petitioner for transfer of the tenement in his favour in terms of Annexure-10 resolution. 4.6. It is contended that on the face of such order passed by this Court on 03.01.2018 , the matter was again placed before the Tenement Committee. The Committee by giving due opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner as well as Opp. Party No.5 and on verification of the records found that as on publication of the resolution dated 24.06.1987 under Annexure-10 which is the basic guideline framed by the Government for Page 28 of 39 // 29 // transfer of the tenement in question in favour of industrial workers, Petitioner is not in continuous possession of the tenement allotted to him. Petitioner was also found ineligible to get the benefit of such resolution as in terms of the provisions contained under Section 6(C) of the Act and Rule (12)(5)(p) of the Rules, Petitioner had ceased to be an Industrial Worker. Since Petitioner ceased to be an industrial worker because of the closure of the company where he was in employment and Petitioner was found not in continuous possession of the tenement allotted to him, Petitioner was found ineligible to get the benefit of Annexure-10 resolution. Accordingly, the impugned decision was taken by the Tenement Committee on 14.12.2020 deciding inter alia to cancel the allotment of the Tenement No. Z-4, Khapuria Industrial Estate, Cuttack so made in favour of the Petitioner. 4.7. It is accordingly contended that since Petitioner ceases to be an industrial worker due to closure of the Company and he was not in continuous possession of Page 29 of 39 // 30 // the tenement which is a pre-requirement for transfer of the tenement in terms of Annexure-10 resolution, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned decision taken by the Tenement Committee on 14.12.2020 under Annexure-1. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner taking account to stand taken in the counter affidavit filed by Opp. Party No.2 and Opp. Party No.5 made further submission basing on the stand taken in the Rejoinder Affidavit. 5.1. It is contended that in terms of the letter of allotment issued in favour of the Petitioner under Annexures- 2 and 3, not only Petitioner used to pay the rent, but also he has paid the rent for the Period from September, 1985 to May, 1986 on 15.05.1987 vide Annexure-9. Therefore, the stand taken by the Opp. Party that Petitioner is not in possession from January,1985 as reflected in Annexure-B/5 is not acceptable. Since the Petitioner was the allottee of the tenement in terms of Annexures-2 & 3 and he was in Page 30 of 39 // 31 // possession of the tenement as on the date of publication of the resolution under Annexure-10, he became eligible and entitled for transfer of tenement in his favour. But by taking a wrong plea that Petitioner was not in continuous possession of the tenement as on the date of notification and he ceases to be an Industrial Worker, the tenement allotted in his favour has been finally cancelled vide order dated 14.12.2020 under Annexure- 1. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order passed by the Tenement Committee on 14.12.2020 under Annexure-1 is not sustainable in the eye of law and requires interference of this Court and with a further direction to transfer the tenement in favour of the Petitioner in terms of the Resolution issued under Annexure-10. 6. I have heard Mr. P.K. Satapathy learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. P.K. Panda learned Addl. Standing Counsel and Ms. D. Mohapatra learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opp. Party No.5. On the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties Page 31 of 39 // 32 // and with due exchange of the pleadings, the matter was heard at the stage of admission and disposed of by the present judgment. 7. This Court after going through the materials available on record finds that the tenement in question i.e. Industrial Tenement No.Z-4, Khapuria Industrial Estate, Cuttack was allotted in favour of the Petitioner on the ground that the Petitioner at the relevant point of time was an Industrial Worker, having been employed in Orissa Textiles and Steels Ltd. Nayabazar, Cuttack vide provisional Allotment letter issued on 24.09.1977 under Annexure-2 and final allotment order issued on 21.12.1977 under Annexure-3. In terms of Annexures-2 & 3, Petitioner was given possession of the Tenement No.Z-4 on 28.12.1977 vide Annexure-4. 7.1. As found Government in the Housing and Urban Development Department issued the Resolution dated 24.06.1987 under Annexure-10. Such a resolution was issued for the purpose of transfer of tenements constructed under Integrated Subsidized Housing Page 32 of 39 // 33 // Schemes for Industrial Workers and economically weaker sections of the Community. The said Resolution was published in the Orissa Gazette on 06.07.1987. As per the terms and conditions prescribed in the said resolution, such transfer of the ownership of the tenement free of cost is to be made in favour of bona fide occupants and industrial workers, subject to various conditions and one such condition as prescribed under Para-3 (a)(i) is that the person should be in continuous possession of the tenement allotted to him. 7.2. As found from the record and on enquiry, Assistant Labour Officer, Cuttack vide his letter dated 29.08.1989 under Annexure-B/5, found that Opp. Party No.5 is in possession of a tenement since January 1985. Such an enquiry was made basing on the letter issued on 21.07.1989 under Annexure-A/5. Basing on such report made by the Asst. Labour Officer on 29.07.1989 under Annexure-D/5, rent for the tenement for the period from January 1985 to July 1987 was accepted from Opp. Party No.5 on 13.09.1989 vide Annexure-C/5. It is also Page 33 of 39 // 34 // found that basing on such report of the Asst. Labour Officer under Annexure-B/5, since petitioner was found not in continuous possession of the tenement and in terms of the provisions contained under Section 6(C) of the Orissa Industrial Housing Act, 1966 and Rule 12(5)(p) of the Orissa Industrial Housing Rules 1969, Petitioner ceased to be an Industrial Worker, allotment of the tenement so made in his favour was cancelled vide order dated 05.01.1990 under Annexure-E/5. Vide another order issued on 05.01.1990 under Annexure- A/5, the tenement was allotted in favour of Opp. Party No.5. 7.3. However, such cancellation of the allotment made in favour of the Petitioner vide order dated 05.01.1990 and subsequent allotment made in favour of Opp. Party No.5 vide order dated 05.1.1990 was interfered with by this Court in its order dated 12.05.1995 in OJC No.5862 of 1991. Even though this Court vide order dated 12.05.1995 set aside the order dated 05.01.1990 and remitted the matter for a fresh decision by the Tenement Page 34 of 39 // 35 // Committee, but as found in terms of said order, the Tenement Committee once again in its proceeding dated 05.07.2002 under Annexure-B/2 to the Counter Affidavit of Opp. Party No.2, decided to cancel the allotment made in favour of the Petitioner on the ground that in view of the provisions contained under Section 6(C) read with Rule 12(5)(p) of the Rules, Petitioner ceased to be an industrial worker and he is not in continuous possession of the tenement as on date of publication of the Resolution dated 24.06.1987 under Annexure-10. Petitioner’s possession over the tenement was not only found unauthorized but also he was not held entitled to get the benefit of Annexure-10, as he was not in continuous possession of the tenement so allotted in his favour. 7.4. Such a decision of the Tenement Committee taken in its proceeding dated 05.07.2002 and subsequent notice issued to the Petitioner on 16.08.2002 to vacate the tenement, was assailed by the Petitioner by filing Misc. Appeal No.113 of 2002 before the District Judge, Page 35 of 39 // 36 // Cuttack. But as found from the record, the said appeal was dismissed vide judgment dated 21.02.2005 under Annexure-16 Series. 7.5. Challenging the decision of the Tenement Committee dtd.05.07.2002 and so also the judgment passed by the Appellate Court on 21.02.2005, Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.3274 of 2005. This Court vide order dated 03.01.2018 under Annexure-15 though was pleased to set aside the decision of the Tenement Committee dt. 05.07.2002 as well as order passed by the District Judge on 21.02.2005 in Misc. Appeal No.131 of 2002, but while setting aside both the decisions as well as the order, the matter was again remitted to the Tenement Committee to consider the claim of the Petitioner for transfer of the tenement in his favour in terms of Annexure-10. 7.6. But as found, the Tenement Committee taking recourse to the provisions contained under Sectiom-6(C ) of the Orissa Industrial Housing Act, 1966 and Rule-12 (5)(p) of the Orissa Industrial Housing Page 36 of 39 // 37 // Rules, 1969 found the possession of the Petitioner over the tenement as unauthorized as due to closure of the company, where the Petitioner was working, he ceased to be an Industrial Worker from the year 1984. The Tenement Committee also found that in terms of Annexure-10 resolution since the Petitioner in view of the report available under Annexure-A/5 is not in continuous possession of the tenement, he is not eligible to get the benefit of transfer of the tenement in his favour. 7.7. This Court after going through the records finds that in terms of the letter issued under Annexure-A/5 when an enquiry was made by the Asst. Labour Officer, Cuttack, it was found that Petitioner is not in possession of the tenement since January, 1985. In terms of the report of Asst. Labour Officer, permission was given to Opp. Party No.5 to deposit the rent of the tenement from January 1985 to July 1987 and neither the report nor the permission to deposit the rent by Page 37 of 39 // 38 // Opp. Party No.5 has been assailed by the Petitioner at any point of time. 7.8. In view of such inaction on the part of the Petitioner in not assailing the report submitted by the Asst. Labour Officer under Annexure-B/5 and the permission accorded to Opp. Party No.5 to deposit the rent for the period from January 1985 to July 1987, the stand taken by the Tenement Committee that Petitioner is not in occupation of the tenement and accordingly he is not entitled to get the benefit of Resolution dated 24.06.1987 cannot be found fault with. 7.9. Not only that, in view of the provisions contained under Section 5(6 ) of the Act and Rule 12(5)(p) of the Rules, since Petitioner ceases to be an Industrial Worker because of closure of the company w.e.f. 16.08.1984 as found from Annexure-5, no fault also can be found with regard to such stand of the Tenement Committee. No document is also on record that the award passed in I.D. Case No. 4 of 1986 was implemented by the employer. Page 38 of 39 // 39 // 7.10. This Court, in view of the aforesaid analysis, is not inclined to interfere with the decision taken by the Tenement Committee in its proceeding dated 24.12.2020 under Annexure-1 so communicated vide letter dated 30.06.2021. 7.11. This Court accordingly dismiss the Writ Petition. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 26th March, 2025 /sangita Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGITA PATRA Reason: authentication of order Location: high court of orissa, cuttack Date: 27-Mar-2025 12:06:01 Page 39 of 39