Back
2010 Supreme(Ori) 648
2011 (I) OLR — 573
V. GOPALA GOWDA, C.J. AND I. MAHANTY, J.
W.P.(C) No.12408 of 2009
In the matter of an applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Pitabasa Mishra and others...Petitioner
Versus
Odisha Industrial Infrastructure
Development Corporation Ltd.
and others...Opp. Parties
Decided on 24th December, 2010.
For Petitioner:M/s. Damodar Pati, S. K. Mishra and S. N. Sharma
For Opp. Parties:M/s. Jagannath Patnaik, B. Mohanty, S. Pattnaik, R. P. Ray and A. Patnaik for O.P. No.1
Mr. A. P. Bose for O.P. No.2
M/s. A. C. Mohanty, G. N. Rout, S. Bhagat and A. Mohanty for O.P. No.4
Headnote:ORISSA INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ACT, 1980 - Secs. 32 and 33 - Industrial plot - Allotment in favour of O.P.No. 2 challenged in Court - Sec. 33(2)(a) provides that where the corporation proposes to dispose of by sale any such land which is surplus to its requirement, it shall in first instance offer the land to the persons from whom it was acquired - Property acquired by the Corporation is public property - Corporation cannot regularise or grant lease in favour of an encroacher - That would affect public interest - Held, decision of the Board to regularise the unauthorised occupation of land in favour of O.P.No. 2 is illegal as the same is contrary to Secs. 32 and 33(a) and (b) - Plot allotted by way of regularization was done without conducting public auction is patently illegal - Allotment letter quashed - Direction issued. (Paras - 7 to 8)
JUDGMENT
V. GOPALA GOWDA, C.J. — The petitioners in this case question the correctness of the letter No.HO/ID/A/2658/01-96 (Annexure-1) allotting industrial plot measuring 0.145 decimals (Revenue Plot No.72(P), khata No.11 of revenue village Raghunathpalli, Rourkela) in favour of the opposite party No.2 M/s. Sai Sansar Associates which is a proprietary concern and pray to quash the same urging various facts and legal contentions.
2.It is the case of the petitioners that opposite party No.1 hereinafter called as IDCO, which is a statutory Corporation has allotted the aforesaid plot for a paltry sum of Rs.7,89,350.00 though its market value would be about two crores. The petitioners who are the allottees of Shop-cum-residence located in the commercial estate, Rourkela carrying on which business in their allotted premises. It is their case that opposite party No.1 being a statutory corporation owns a commercial estate in Rourkela. There are 10 nos of A type shop-cum-residential buildings and 11 nos. of B type shop-cum-residence are available at the Commercial Estate. The main object of the opposite party No.1-Corporation is to form industrial estates by acquiring lands and forming industrial buildings and allot the same in favour of eligible applicants with a view to see that industries are developed in an orderly manner. The Corporation without issuing any public notice inviting applications from the eligible persons has allotted the land in question referred to supra in favour of opposite party No.2 for outright sale for establishment of Saree Polishing and Dyeing of Garments and Fabric Unit. It is stated that the Corporation under Section 15 of the Act is empowered to allot plots, factory sheds or building or part of building including residential tenements to suitable persons in the industrial estate established and developed by the Corporation. The Corporation can dispose of its property as per the requirement laid down as per Section 33 of the Act. Without adhering to the statutory provision as provided in Section 33, the Corporation has allotted the same for a paltry sum in favour of opposite party No.2.
3.It is their further case that there is statutory obligation on the part of the Corporation under Section 34 of the Act to allot unutilized area of plots capable of sub-division to any person. But before that it shall issue notice to the plot holders in the industrial area calling upon them to furnish relevant information in the prescribed form. Sub-section (4) of Section 34 provides for giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the plot holders and other persons interested in the plot regarding the allotment of unutilized plots. The land has been allotted in favour of opposite party No.2 on leasehold basis up to 2.1.2076. Allotment of the land situated in a prime locality for a paltry sum for such long period on lease conferring right of enjoyment without following the procedure as provided under the provisions of the Act and the law in this regard is arbitrary and unreasonable. It is detrimental to the interest of the Corporation. Therefore, public interest will suffer.
4.It is their further case that the allotment of such industrial plot in favour of opposite party No.2 is not conducive to the nearby allottees and plot-holders who are also residing in the plots because the manufacturing activity that will be undertaken by opposite party No.2 will involve polishing and dyeing of garments and the activities will create pollution in the environment thereby the neighbouring allottees would suffer. For this reason also they have prayed for quashing of the allotment. It is further stated by them that the allotment has been made on the recommendation of opposite party No.3. Opposite party No.3 is obliged to consider the application of opposite party No.2 along with other applicants before recommending to the Corporation for allotment in favour of opposite party No.2.
The said petition is opposed by opposite party No.1 by fil
