[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
T. Balaram Kishen vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 6 April, 2026
Author: B.P. Routray
Bench: B.P. Routray
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 10-Apr-2026 17:41:53
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.15223 of 2025
(In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India)
T. Balaram Kishen .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
For Petitioner : Ms. Deepali Mahapatra, Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Mr. T.K. Dash, A.G.A.
For O.P. Nos.1, 5 & 6
Mr. B.K. Dash, Senior Advocate
For O.P. Nos.2 to 4
Mrs. Soma Patnaik, Advocate
For O.P No.7
CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY
JUDGMENT
6th April 2026
B.P. Routray, J.
1. Heard Ms. Deepali Mahapatra, learned Advocate for the
Petitioner, Mr. T.K. Dash, learned Additional Government Advocate
for State-Opposite Parties 1, 5 & 6, Mr. B.K. Dash, learned Senior
Advocate for Opposite Parties 2 to 4 and Mrs. Soma Patnaik, learned
Advocate for Opposite Party No.7.
Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 10-Apr-2026 17:41:53
2. The Petitioner has an industrial unit, namely, Sri Kanaka Durga
Wood Working Industry situating over Plot No.SMB 76 at IDCO
Industrial Estate, Autonagar, Berhampur. Similarly, Opposite Party
No.7 is also another industrial unit, namely, M/s.Charidham Company
(A Wood Based Industry) situating over Plot No.SMB 80 & 81 at same
Industrial Estate, Autonagar, Berhampur.
3. As per the Petitioner, he is running a Saw Mill since long by
complying all the requirements and for expansion of his business, he
applied for allotment of adjacent two plots Viz. Plot No.SMB 82 &
SMB 83 measuring an area Ac.0.344 decimals (3920 sqft.) for
manufacturing of wood, metal and aluminum furniture. His application
was twice rejected by the District Level Facilitation Cell (in short,
"DLFC"), Ganjam on 18.05.2023 and 10.08.2023. It needs to be stated
here that DLFC functions on behalf of Industries Department along
with IDCO for recommending the land in favour of industrial units.
The first rejection dated 18.05.2023 of the DLFC is for the reason that
the Wood Based Industry is coming under negative list. The 2nd
rejection made on 10.08.2023 is for the reason that no land is available
at Autonagar Phase-II Industrial Estate.
Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 10-Apr-2026 17:41:53
4. The Petitioner's further case is that, after rejection of his request
for allotment of land twice, Plot No.SMB 82 & 83 was allotted in
favour of Opposite Party No.7, which is a Wood Based Industry,
without any application and violating the guidelines dated 30.07.2011.
5. The IDCO (Opposite Parties 2 to 4) as well as Opposite Party
No.7 have filed their respective counters denying the contentions of the
Petitioner. As per the averments made in the counter affidavit of
IDCO, it is stated that the Petitioner was not found eligible for grant of
additional plots in his favour because it was a Wood Based Industry
and there was no recommendation given in its favour by the Principal
Chief Conservator of Forests ("PCCF"). But, in the case of Opposite
Party No.7, the recommendation of the PCCF is there as per the
guideline dated 04.02.2017 of the IDCO. It is further stated by
Opposite Parties 2 to 4 that, no recommendation was received in
respect of the Petitioner from the Office of the PCCF, Odisha, which is
the nodal agency for recommendation of land to Saw Mills and Wood
Based Industries. So, any such prayer of a Wood based Industry for
allotment of land in the Industrial Estate area cannot be considered
without being recommended by the Office of the PCCF, Odisha.
Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 10-Apr-2026 17:41:53
6. Opposite Party No.7 has stated in his counter that, his Industrial
Unit was established since 2021 and Plot No.SMB 80 & 81 measuring
15,000 sqft. were allotted in his favour in the year 2020. It is stated by
Opposite Party No.7 that, initially on 15.11.2018 he had applied for
land measuring 30,000 sqft. and his application was kept open for
further allotment, after granting 15,000 sqft. in his favour. Thereafter
upon his persuasion, the Land Allotment Committee of IDCO vide
their meeting dated 14.11.2024 approved allotment of balance land
measuring 15,000 sqft. and consequently, IDCO vide its letter dated
25.03.2025 (Annexure-D/2) allotted Plot No.SMB 82 & 83 measuring
15,000 sqft. in favour of Opposite Party No.7. As per Opposite Party
No.7, no further application is required to be submitted on his part
since his prayer from the beginning was for grant of 30,000 sqft. of
land, out of which only 15,000 sq.ft. was granted leaving another
15,000 sqft. to be granted subsequently.
7. The Petitioner has challenged the grant of additional plot in
favour of Opposite Party No.7 by contending that when his application
was rejected on the ground that no land is available in the Industrial
Estate then how the land could be granted in favour of Opposite Party
No.7 for same wood industries purpose. The further contention of the
Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 10-Apr-2026 17:41:53
Petitioner is that, such allotment of land in favour of Opposite Party
No.7 is in violation of the guidelines dated 30.07.2011 (Annexure-A/7
series).
8. At the outset, it is seen that the application of the Petitioner for
grant of such additional land for the purpose of expansion of his
business to establish manufacturing of wood, metal and aluminum
furnitures was not in respect of any particular land of the Industrial
Estate. Admittedly the Petitioner's unit exists over Plot No.SMB 76 &
77 of the Industrial Estate and Opposite Party No.7's unit exists over
Plot No.SMB 80 & 81 of the same Industrial Estate. The application of
the Petitioner at Annexure-5 series for grant of additional land was not
in respect of Plot No.SMB 82 & 83 though it is stated by him in the
application that the same are lying vacant.
9. Thus, grant of land in favour of Opposite Party No.7 in respect
of Plot No.SMB 82 & 83 cannot be questioned by the Petitioner for the
reason that his application is not specifically concerned to such plots.
However, it is seen that the Petitioner's existing unit is not coming
under the category of Saw Mill or Wood Based Industry and his
proposal for expansion of the business to manufacture metal and wood
Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 10-Apr-2026 17:41:53
furnitures may come under said category provided the same has been
allowed in respect of the Petitioner. Thus, no locus is seen on the part
of the Petitioner to raise any objection to grant of land in favour of
Opposite Party No.7, which is of the category of Saw Mill and Wood
Based Industry.
10. Next coming to the guidelines dated 30.07.2011, the same
applies to such cases where the Wood Based Industries or Saw Mills
have been closed by order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 10 th
July 2009. Thus, having examined the case of Opposite Party No.7
where he applied for establishment of the industry in the year 2017 and
then made application for allotment of land in his favour in 2019, it
does not come within the specified category of Wood Based Industries
to be covered under the guideline dated 30.07.2011. So, no requirement
to follow the guidelines in Notification dated 30.07.2011, as contended
by the Petitioner, is found applicable to the present case of Opposite
Party No.7. To see the grievance of the Petitioner, he is interested for
allotment of additional land in his favour for expansion of his business
to establish a manufacturing unit for metal and wood furnitures. The
specific contention of Opposite Party No.7 on the other hand is that, he
initially applied for 30,000 sqft. and only 15,000 sqft. was allotted to
Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 10-Apr-2026 17:41:53
him for establishment of the industry and allotment of rest land was
kept open before the authority. His initial application is undisputedly
for 30,000 sqft. in the Industrial Estate and therefore, his subsequent
allotment of 15,000 sqft. to fill up the requirement of 30,000 sqft.
cannot be said as a separate move made on the part of O.P. No.7
ignoring the case of others. The Petitioner is a running Saw Mill
operating over Plot No.SMB 76 & 77 since long and now for
expansion of his business in a different form, i.e., regarding
manufacture of metal and wood furnitures, he made fresh application
for allotment of additional lands. Therefore, when the original
application of Opposite Party No.7 was for 30,000 sqft. initially made
in the year 2019, the Petitioner, who is a subsequent applicant as an
independent unit, cannot question the right of Opposite Party No.7 for
consideration of his application in respect of the land to be allotted in
his favour as per his original application. Therefore, the reason given
for rejection of the prayer of the Petitioner regarding non-availability
of land would not stand on the way of Opposite Party No.7, to consider
his application for grant of rest part of the land he originally applied
for.
Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 10-Apr-2026 17:41:53
11. However, in course of hearing and stated in the counter affidavit
of the IDCO, it is submitted that other patches of land in Plot No.SMB
74, 75, 78 and 79 are still lying vacant without being allotted to
anyone. In such situation, it would be reasonable to direct for
reconsideration of the application of Petitioner for allotment of any
such vacant land in favour of the Petitioner, provided he fulfills all
such criteria.
12. In view of the discussions made above, the writ petition is
disposed of with direction to Opposite Parties 2 to 4 to reconsider the
prayer of the Petitioner for allotment of any other vacant land in his
favour, provided the Petitioner fulfills the required criteria, within a
period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this
order.
(B.P. Routray)
Judge
B.K. Barik/A.R.-cum-Senior Secretary
