The authority's decision to reclaim public property for consistent breaches by the allottee, despite several opportunities to comply, confirms that equitable considerations cannot override legal obligations.

JUDGMENT :

SANJEEB K. PANIGRAHI, J.

1. The Petitioner, in this Writ Petition, challenges Estate Officer’s order No.12499 dated 25.04.2023 passed in EUO Case No.27/87 and the Collector and District Magistrate, Jagatsinghpur’s appellate order dated 08.02.2024.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(i) The property is IDCO Plot No.35(A), Village Paradeepgarh, Khata No.381, Revenue Plot No.1067(P), area Ac.0.125, originally allotted on 13.05.1982 for a coal briquette unit (registration No.150406623), with initial identification as Plot No.43(2) later renumbered to 35/A.

(ii) IDCO cancelled the allotment on 06.11.1986 citing dues/non-utilization and initiated EUO No.27/87; an eviction order was passed on 21.07.1987.

(iii) The petitioner deposited Rs.32,500 under an OTS in 2009–2011 period towards HP dues; earlier and later settlement/OTS communications were issued by IDCO.

(iv) Fresh show-cause notices for cancellation issued on 22.07.2015 and 10.03.2017 referred to non-utilization, arrears (Rs.2,334 as on 04.03.2017), absence of industrial activity, and unauthorized residential use.

(v) The petitioner claims operations of “Hara Briquette Industry” occurred broadly between 1988 and 2004 and later sought to change activity to a prawn processing unit; IDCO asserts no approval for such change exists on its portal or records.

(vi) The petitioner relies on online payments/receipts including Rs.6,490 dated 09.03.2022 for “activity charges,” Rs.7,060 and Rs.1,516 dated 13.03.2022, and Rs.1,139 dated 26.12.2024; IDCO disputes that these reflect a sanctioned trade modification.

(vii) The petitioner applied on the IDCO portal on 10.03.2022 seeking revocation of cancellation; objections were issued on 04.05.2023 noting pendency of appeal/proceedings.

(viii) The Estate Officer on 25.04.2023 authorized eviction under Section 5 (2) of the OPP(EUO) Act; DH Cuttack requested police support on 30.05.2023; interim stay was granted on 03.07.2023 in OPP EUO Appeal No.03/2023; the appeal was dismissed on 08.02.2024.

(ix) Following dismissal, the Estate Court issued memo dated 01.11.2024 directing eviction; DH Paradeep sought deputation of an Executive Magistrate on 13.01.2025 for execution.

(x) The petitioner pleads that the 1986 cancellation had been revoked in 2011 and that later notices in 2017 and cancellation in 2018 constituted a fresh cause; IDCO maintains continuity of breaches justifying eviction.

(xi) Both sides rely on IDCO Circulars and procedural records, including references to Clause 2.7 (change of activity) and Clause 2.11 (revocation) of the 23.07.2016 circular, though their application to the petitioner’s case is contested.

(xii) The current writ WP(C) No.3197/2025 seeks quashing of the 25.04.2023 and 08.02.2024 orders and revival/continuation of allotment with permission to change activity; the Opposite Parties seek dismissal with costs.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:

(i) The impugned orders dt. 25.04.2023 and 08.02.2024 are bad in law, illegal, mechanical, and passed without proper appreciation of facts and records.

(ii) Both Estate Officer and Appellate Authority failed to consider IDCO Circular dt.23.07.2016, particularly Clause 2.7 (change of activity with penalty) and Clause 2.11 (revocation of cancellation upon compliance).

(iii) The p