[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Sri Bhaskar Rout vs State Of Odisha on 18 March, 2026
Author: Chittaranjan Dash
Bench: Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. No.851 of 2025
In the matter of an Appeal under Section 10 of the Letter Patent of
the Patna High Court, read with Article-4 of the Orissa High Court
Order, 1948.
....
Sri Bhaskar Rout ... Appellant
-Versus-
1. State of Odisha, represented through
Secretary, Housing & Urban Development
Department.
2. Chairman-cum-Labour Commissioner,
Odisha Tenement Committee, Bhubaneswar.
3. Member Convenor, Director, Housing-cum-
Joint Secretary to Government, H & U.D.
Department, Bhubaneswar.
4. Collector-cum-Member, Tenement Committee,
Cuttack.
5. Bishnu Charan Sutar ... Respondents
Advocates who have appeared in this case:
For Appellant - Mr. Prafulla Ku. Rath, Sr. Advocate
M/s. Prasanta Ku. Satapathy,
B.K. Das, T. Panda & S. Pati
Advocates
For Respondents - Mr. S.B. Panda, AGA,
For R.1 to 4
Ms. Depali Mahapatra
Advocate for R.5
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA SHRIPAD DIXIT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing : 16.03.2026 Date of Judgment : 18.03.2026
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PER KRISHNA S. DIXIT, J.
This Intra-Court Appeal seeks to lay challenge to a
learned Single Judge's order dated 26.03.2025, whereby
Appellant's WP No.35944 of 2021 has been negatived. In the said
WP, he had called in question Tenement Committee Proceeding
dated 14.12.2020 by which the Collector-cum-Housing
Commissioner was directed to evict him by cancelling the
allotment of the subject Industrial Tenement on the ground that he
had ceased to be an industrial worker as provided under Section
6(c) of the Orissa Industrial Housing Act 1966. He had also sought
for a direction to the Official Respondents to transfer the
ownership of said Tenement in his favour in terms of Government
Resolution dated 24.06.1987.
2. FACTS IN BRIEF:
2.1. Appellant, an industrial worker had secured allotment of
the subject Tenement at the hands of Labour Commissioner vide
letter dated 24.09.1977 under the provisions of 1966 Act read with
Odisha Industrial Housing Rules 1969. He was put in possession
vide letter dated 28.12.1977. However, the said allotment came to
be cancelled by the Assistant Housing Commissioner vide order
dated 05.01.1990 and further the subject tenement came to be
allotted in favour of Resp-5.
2.2. The above order dated 05.01.1990 was impugned by the
Appellant in OJC No.5862 of 1991. A Coordinate Bench of this
Court favoured the same vide order 12.05.1995, relevant part
whereof reads as under:
"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
Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. It is made
further clear that both the Petitioner and opposite Party No.4
will appear before the Commissioner, of fresh notice."
(Emphasis supplied)
In terms of said order, Appellant was given possession on
03.04.1996.
2.3. In terms of Coordinate Bench order dated 12.05.1995, a
proceeding was initiated afresh with the participation of Appellant
who appeared before the Tenement Committee and submitted
representation on 26.03.2002. The Committee, after hearing the
stakeholders, handed order dated 05.07.2002 cancelling the
allotment made in favour of the Appellant and allotting the subject
tenement in favour of Resp-5. Accordingly, notice dated
16.08.2002 was issued asking him to vacate. He filed Misc.
Appeal No.131/2002 under Section 14 of the Act, 1966
challenging the said order and the same came to be negatived by
the learned District Judge, Cuttack on 21.02.2005. This was
challenged in WP(C) No.3274/2005 that was allowed on
03.01.2008. The order in Appeal and the cancellation of allotment
were quashed and matter was remitted to the Committee for
consideration afresh with an observation that Tenement
Committee's decision is unreasoned; consequently the confirming
order passed in the Appeal is also unreasonable.
2.4. The Committee headed by the Labour Commissioner as
Chairman having considered all aspects of the matter, again took
a decision on 14.12.2020 cancelling the allotment of tenement
made in favour of the Appellant and further to evict him.
Appellant did not avail the statutory remedy of Appeal against the
same unlike the way he did earlier. He filed WP(C)
No.35944/2021 challenging the decision of the Committee. The
same came to be dismissed by the impugned order, which is now
put at our hands for examination.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having
perused the Appeal papers, we decline indulgence in the matter for
the following reasons:
3.1. The first submission of learned Sr. Advocate Mr. Rath
appearing for the Appellant that all throughout his client has been
in the occupation of the property on allotment dated 24.09.1977
and this fact is vouched by the Division Bench order dated
12.05.1995 entered in OJC No.5862/1991 is only a half truth.
Firstly, allotment cannot be disputed is true. However, that was
cancelled vide order dated 05.01.1990 and the tenement was
allotted to Resp-5, is also not in dispute. The Appellant secured
possession only on 03.04.1996, on the basis of OJC order that too
subject to initiation of proper proceeding for cancellation, as has
been specifically observed in the very said order itself, which is
reproduced above. It also cannot be disputed that during the
interregnum between 05.01.1990 & 03.04.1996, it was Resp-5,
who was in the occupation of the subject property. There is
another aspect to this observation, which we discuss a bit later.
3.2. The Industry had allegedly laid off the Appellant and
other workmen vide order dated 16.08.1984, that came to be set at
naught by the award dated 06.11.1986 entered by the Industrial
Tribunal. During this interregnum, the Appellant was not in the
occupation of the subject tenement, presumably because he had
lost the means of livelihood because of Lay Off. There is sufficient
justification for assuming that he had put Resp-5 in the occupation
of the tenement soon after the Lay Off and went away to his native
place. That is the reason as to why the said Resp-5 had applied for
allotment in the year 1988 mentioning the factum of his
occupation. The report of the Assistant Labour Officer, Cuttack
dtd. 29.08.1989 addressed to the Assistant Labour Commissioner-
cum-Housing Commissioner reported that Resp-5 was staying in
the subject Industrial Tenement since 1985. In the absence of any
evidentiary material to the contrary, it cannot be assumed that the
said Resp. was given sub-tenancy and therefore, there was
violation of terms of allotment so also Rule-12(5)(e) of the
Industrial Housing Rules,1969 to that extent.
3.3. There is a wealth of evidentiary material to the effect that
before restoration of possession pursuant to OJC order, Appellant
was not in the occupation of the property whereas it was Resp-5
who was holding the same since January,1985. Therefore, the
Committee's decision of cancelling Appellant's allotment and
allotting the subject tenement to Resp-5 cannot be assailed. In fact,
even the OJC order in unmistaken words stated about the same
when it directed restoration of possession to the Appellant from
the hands of Resp-5. There is absolutely no explanation
whatsoever as to why the Appellant was away from the occupation
of the tenement during the said period. There is not even a whisper
about the finding recorded by the officials of the Department as
also in the report of the Assistant Labour Officer. Possession has
been restored pursuant to OJC order, does not preclude an
appropriate enquiry conducted by the Committee based on spot
inspection coupled with other evidentiary material. We repeat that
the very OJC order permitted such an exercise.
3.4. The next contention of Mr. Rath that the allotment of
tenements of the kind is governed by the provisions of 1966 Act
and 1969 Rules, is true. It is also true that the Government issued
Resolution dated 24.06.1987 for further regulating transfer of
ownership these tenements. He pressed into service Section 6 of
the Act, which has the following text:
"6. Occupation when deemed to be unauthorised-For the purposes
of this Act a person shall, save as otherwise provided in this Act, be
deemed to be in unauthorised occupation of any house-
a) where he has entered into possession of a house otherwise than
in pursuance of any allotment made by the Housing Commissioner;
(b) where being an allottee he has by reason, of cancellation of an
allotment under Section 8 ceased to be entitled to occupy the
house, or
(c) has ceased to be an industrial worker.
Explanation-A person shall not merely by reason of the fact that he
has paid any amount as rent be deemed to have entered into
possession of the house as allottee."
The contention advanced on behalf of Appellant that the
occupation of the Resp-5 prior to his very application of 1988 that
is with effect from 1985 has to be treated as unauthorized
occupation cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that the
Appellant's allotment was cancelled and in view of eventual
vacancy, allotment was made in favour of Resp-5 vide order dated
05.01.1990. This was pursuant to application made by the said
Resp. in the year 1988. It is not the case of Appellant that the said
Resp. was not an industrial worker within the meaning of Section
2 (e) of the Act during the relevant period.
3.5. Fairly enough, it is not the case of Appellant that the Act,
1966 does not confer power to cancel the allotment once made.
Section 8 of the Act specifically provides for cancellation. Very
notably it begins with Henry VIII Clause. The provision reads as
under:
"Cancellation of allotment-Notwithstanding anything
contained in any other law for the time being in force, the
Housing Commissioner may after notice to the occupier
and considering his explanation, if any, for reasons to be
recorded, cancel any allotment under which a house is
held or occupied by any person and upon an order
cancelling the allotment being made a copy thereof shall
be served upon such person."
The Housing Commission has the advantage of accumulated
expertise in matters like this. Even the Tenement Committee is
headed by the said Commissioner. Spot inspection was
undertaken. There is an independent report of the Assistant Labour
Officer. There is a very important fact that supports the view that
the Appellant was away from the occupation of the property,
inasmuch as he alleged suffered Lay Off order in August, 1984
and that was held to be illegal by the Industrial Tribunal only on
26.09.1986. Not even an iota of material is produce by the
Appellant to vouch his contention that he was not away. During
the said period, the vinculum juris of employer-employee had
evaporated, cannot be disputed. The stand of the Appellant that
Lay Off is held to be illegal although long after it was affected
does not advance case of the Appellant that he should be deemed
to be an industrial worker during the said period, for the purpose
of this special Act of the kind. A fiction created by the Award of
the Industrial Tribunal cannot be stretched too far enough to
accommodate contention to the contrary.
3.6. Learned Sr. Advocate Mr. Rath fervently pressed into
service the Government Resolution dated 24.06.1987 in support of
his case and therefore, relevant part of the same is reproduced
below:
"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 to the following terms and conditions.
(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 time 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 the time of transfer of
ownership, provided further that such a person should be
in continuous possession of the tenement allotted to him...
(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 whoso
jurisdiction the tenements are located, or his nominated
representative as member and the Director, Housing-cum-
Deputy Secretary to Government, Housing & Urban
Development Department as member-convener...
(l) The transfer of ownership in case of illegal 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.
(n) The illegal occupants of the tenements will be evicted
under the provisions of Orissa Industrial Housing Rules,
1969..."
3.7. The very first part of paragraph of the above Resolution
contemplates there being bona fide occupants who are in industrial
employment. As already observed above, during the relevant
period, the Appellant had ceased to be an industrial worker on
account of his alleged Lay Off till the same was held to be illegal
by the Tribunal in September, 1986. Clauses (e) & (p) of Rule 12
of 1969 Rules in this regard assume relevance and therefore, are
reproduced:
"(e) The allottee shall not assign his right of tenancy and
shall not sub-let or under-let or part-with possession of
the house or any part thereof....
(p) The allottee being an industrial worker within the
meaning of Section 2
(e) of the Act the tenancy shall cease forthwith as soon as
he ceases to be an industrial worker:
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 previous approval
of the Housing Commissioner continue up to the period
as detailed below:
(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..."
(Emphasis supplied)
It is not the case of Appellant again to say that Resp-5 had
suffered any retrenchment, lay off or the like during the said
period, unlike himself. What way the occupation of the tenement
by Resp-5 can be termed as unauthorized occupation is difficult to
visualize.
3.8. The above apart, as is revealed from the Counter filed by
the Resp-5 in W.P.(C) No.35944 of 2021, a specific contention
was taken before the learned Single Judge that the stand of
Appellant regarding passing of award in I.D. Case No.4 of 1986 is
a product of afterthought and it does not reflect that the Appellant
was a concerned workman in the said Case. It is further revealed
from the record that, pursuant to the order of Coordinate Bench
dated 01.11.1995 passed in O.J.C. No.5362 of 1991, a notice dated
14.03.2002 (Annexure-18) was issued by the Additional District
Magistrate, Cuttack to the Assistant Commissioner Housing-cum-
Assistant Labour Commission, Cuttack. The present Appellant so
also the Resp-.5 were asked to participate in the meeting that was
scheduled to be held on 23.2.2022 at 3:00 P.M. in the Office
Chamber of the Collector. Appellant accordingly participated in
the said meeting and submitted his Written Statement along with
documents, on 26.03.2022 vide Anneuxre-19. As is revealed from
the said written submission of the Appellant, no such stand was
taken in the said proceeding before the Tenement Committee
constituted under the Act, 1966 regarding division of Orissa
Textile & Steel Limited (OTS) and formation of M/s. Kalinga
Textile Corporation(KTS) in February, 1982 and direction of the
employer to the Appellant to work in the newly formed
Corporation ,i.e., M/s. KTS, so also lay off and passing of the
award by the Industrial Tribunal in I.D. Case No.4 of 1986
declaring such lay off to be illegal and unjustified directing the
Management to pay salary to the concerned workmen from 1984-
1987. As it appears from the record in W.P.(C) No.35944 of
2021, for the first time such a stand was taken before the learned
Singe Judge.
3.9. Further, it is also revealed from the record that in all the
earlier proceedings, prior to preferring W.P.(C) No.35944 of 2021,
the issue before the Tenement Committee , the learned District
Judge, Cuttack so also this Court was regarding the legality of
order of cancellation of subject tenement as against the Appellant
and it's re-allotment in favour of the Respondent No.5. In none of
the said proceedings, the present Appellant had ever claimed his
right for transfer of ownership in terms of Government Resolution
dated 24.06.1987. For the first time, apart from praying for the
quashment of Tenement Committee decision dated 14.12.2020, a
prayer was made in W.P.(C) No.35944 of 2021 to direct the
Opposite Parties to transfer the ownership of Tenement in favour
of the Appellant in terms of the said Resolution dated 24.06.1987.
3.10. It is further revealed from the record that, the learned
Single Judge, before passing the impugned judgment, passed an
order dated 04.03.2024 in W.P(C) No.35944 of 2021 directing the
learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner to satisfy the Court as to
whether the report of the Assistant Labour Officer dated 29th
August, 1989, which was submitted on being directed by the
Assistant Labour-cum-Housing Commissioner, Cuttack vide his
letter dated 21st July, 1989, was the subject matter of challenge in
any proceeding. Being so directed, the present Appellant
(Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.35944 of 2021) failed to meet the said
query. Accordingly, vide impugned judgment, the learned Single
Judge, confirmed the finding of Housing Committee that the
Appellant ceased to be an industrial worker because of closure of
the Industry with effect from 16.08.1984. The learned Single
Judge also confirmed the said finding of the Tenement Committee
that the Appellant was not in the occupation of subject tenement
during the period when the gazette notification of Resolution dated
24.06.1987 was issued and that the Assistant Labour Officer's
report dated 29th August, 1989 was not assailed by the Appellant.
3.11. Mr. Rath, learned Sr. Counsel for the Appellant, relying
on certain documents annexed to I.A. No.4118 of 2025, argued
before this Court that the finding of the learned Single Judge vide
the impugned judgment that his client ceased to be an industrial
worker because of the closure of the Company with effect from
16.08.1984 is erroneous and deserves to be set aside. In response,
Ms. Mahapatra, learned Counsel for the Resp-5 vehemently
opposed the admissibility of such documents in an Intra-Court
appeal on the ground that the said documents have never seen the
light of the day, as they were not made part of the record in any of
the earlier proceedings. Ms.Mahapatra is also right in telling us
that no explanation has been offered by the Appellant in this
regard, either. The act of Appellant in pressing all these documents
for the first time before us in support of his case, appears to be an
afterthought and therefore, they cannot be much relied upon.
3.12. Added to the above, admittedly those documents now
sought to be produced along with the subject I.A. do pertain to
some money claims made by the Appellant along with other
workmen under Section 33-C(2) of 1947 Act. The claim is in
respect of wages and bonus. All that cannot be the basis for
seeking voiding of the impugned order asserting that even after the
closure of OTS with effect from 16.08.1984, the Appellant
continued to be an workman under M/s. KTS, which is allegedly a
sister concern of M/s. Orissa Textile and Steel Ltd., Nuabazar,
Cuttack, more particularly, in the absence of any such stand taken
before the Tenement Committee so also before this Court prior to
preferring W.P(C) No.35944 of 2021. That apart, the order passed
in the 33-C (2) proceeding has been obtained ex-part in the year
2012,which is much after clouser of the said industry and the letter
of the Labour Commissioner to recover the said amount under
Section 33-C (1) is of July,2025.
3.13. There is force in the submission of learned counsel Ms.
Mahapatra that a foundational finding of fact on which allotment
of the tenement is cancelled eventually resulting into allotment in
favour of Resp-5 cannot be re-adjudicated by the Writ Court
whilst exercising a limited supervisory jurisdiction under Article
227. This submission becomes more plausible, inasmuch as the
finding of fact recorded while cancelling the allotment having
been examined by the learned Single Judge has attained finality
leaving no scope for us to undertake deeper examination of the
evidentiary material that has entered the record of case. A mere
error of law or fact is not sufficient for the Intra Court Appeal to
grant interference, subject to all just exceptions into which argued
case of the Appellant does not fit. Despite vociferous submissions,
how the impugned order in unsustainable has not been
substantially demonstrated.
In the above circumstances, the Appeal being unworthy of
merits is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is, costs having
been made easy.
(Krishna Shripad Dixit)
Judge
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
Signature NotOrissa
Verified
High Court, Cuttack,
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BASUDEV NAYAK
The 18th day of March, 2026/Basu
Designation: ADDL. DY. REGISTRAR-CUM-ADDL.
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK
Date: 24-Mar-2026 11:55:26
