Orissa High Court
M/S Anupama Enterprise vs State Of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite ... on 20 June, 2025
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
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) : Mr.Niranjan Lenka, Adv.
For Opposite Party (s) : 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
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
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
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
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
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
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
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.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
(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
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
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
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
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:
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
(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
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
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.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
(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. 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.
8. 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.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
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.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
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.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
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/
