The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of following legal procedures for eviction and allotment, determining the true intention of the parties in property transactions, and the significance of boundaries in determining property rights.

JUDGMENT :

B.S. Chauhan, C.J. - This writ petition has been filed to complete the sale/transfer of the Unit in favour of the Petitioner and to quash the allotment of land granted in favour of the opposite party No. 4 vide letter dated 17.10.2001 (AnnEx. -12).

2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that vide letter dated 5.9.1986 an area measuring Ac. 7.92 decimals, containing 3 plots bearing plot Nos. 123/ A, 130 and 146 was allotted to Orissa State Electronic Development Corporation (hereinafter called the 'Corporation'), out of which the Corporation asked the Industrial Development Corporation of Orissa (IDCO) to hand over possession of Plot No. 123/ A to M/s. Elcomos Electronics Ltd. (hereinafter called 'Elcomos Ltd.'). The said plot was handed over to Elcomos Ltd. on 13.7.1987 and in respect of the same a lease deed was executed on 18.11.1988. The said plot was mortgaged by Elcomos Ltd. on 24.01.1989 in favour of Orissa State Financial Corporation (hereinafter called 'O.S.F.C.'). As the loan was not paid by the Elcomos Ltd., the plot was attached by O.S.F.C. in exercise of its power u/s 29 of the Orissa State Financial Corporations Act (hereinafter called the 'Act'). The said plot was put to auction on 9.3.1998 and settled in favour of the Petitioner for a consideration of Rs. 180 lakhs with down payment of Rs. 40 lakhs. The balance amount was to be paid within five years in eight half yearly installments. Accordingly, the Petitioner took possession of the entire land and building, plant and machinery, as per the layout plan, on the said plot bearing No. 123/A.

As the deal of the Unit had been made on "as is where is" basis, the Petitioner took possession of the unit as it was on that date. Certain land was lying vacant in the vicinity of the said plot which has been allotted to opposite party No. 4 vide impugned order dated 10.9.2001. As the Respondent No. 4 had been allotted total area of Ac. 1.19 decimals, the vacant land was found only measuring Ac. 1.07 decimals and it was assumed that the land measuring Ac. 0.12 decimals was in possession of the Petitioner. Therefore, the dispute is as to whether Petitioner is in possession of the land excess to what had been sold to it.

3. This writ petition has been filed raising large number of issues, but at the time of submission Mr. Y. Dash, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the Petitioner has restricted his case to retain the land which the Petitioner has got possession on 18.9.1998.

4. this Court while entertaining the petition has passed the order granting the interim relief to maintain status quo. Shri Das, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioner has submitted that while making the advertisement dated 28.6.1998, for sale of the unit u/s 29 of the Act (under AnnEx. -1), only the description of land was given by boundaries, No. area had been mentioned therein. Petitioner's bid was accepted for a sum of Rs. 180 lakhs vide letter dated 23.07.1998 (AnnEx. -3). The said letter also does not mention the area of the plot. The possession letter dated 18.9.1998 (AnnEx. -4) also does not provide for area rather it refers to possession of the land and building, plant and machinery etc. which had been handed over to the Petitioner on "as is where is" basis. None of the Opposite parties 1 to 3 had ever issued any show cause notice or initiated any proceeding under any law for eviction, if the Petitioner was in possession of the excess land. Therefore, the question of allotment of land to the extent of Ac. 0.12 decimals in favour of opposite party No. 4 does not arise. It is further submitted that the land allotted to the Petitioner is a public premises which falls within the definition of public premises in view of the provisions u/s 29 of the Orissa Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation Act, 1980 (hereinafter called the 'Act, 1980'). Therefore, for eviction, proceedings could have been initiated under the Act, 1980. Even a trespasser cannot b