Dismissed¶40

Kishore Ku.Ratha v. Orissa Industrial in

Orissa HC8 Sept 2025WP(C)/21510/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Kishore Kumar Ratha v. Orissa Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation & Ors., High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, W.P.(C) No. 21510 of 2014, decided 08.09.2025 by Dixit Krishna Shripad, J. — Cancellation of industrial plot allotment at Bolangir upheld for breach of lease condition requiring hotel construction within twelve months; natural justice and proportionality challenges rejected; show cause notice held sufficient; allottee cannot keep plot vacant indefinitely; petitioner directed to return plot within eight weeks, failing which retrieval with police aid.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with costs made easy; petitioner directed to deliver back the plot in question to the answering OPs within eight (8) weeks, failing which the same may be retrieved by the said OPs with the aid of police ¶40

Kishore Ku.Ratha Vs Orissa Industrial in — Writ and Judicial Review | Orissa HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the cancellation of the plot allotment was valid despite the petitioner's claim that no fault lay on his part, much time and money having been invested in bringing the plot to the required level +2 more

¶21

Court's answer

The petitioner breached an essential term of the lease by failing to construct the hotel building within the prescribed twelve months; no building was constructed, whatever be the arguable reason

¶29

Ratio / Principle

An allottee who does not abide by the allotment condition defeats the very purpose of allotment and causes injustice to the public interest; he cannot keep the plot vacant indefinitely with impunity

¶31

Key takeaways

The contention that the petitioner was not given a reasonable opportunity of hearing is rejected, as a show cause notice dated 16.07.2014 was issued before the impugned actionratio¶34
The petitioner's explanation that years were spent making the site suitable for construction and obtaining approval of the land does not generate confidence in the absence of material particulars; there is no explanation for over a decade of inaction when twelve months were prescribedratio¶34
Cancellation of allotment for violation of the lease condition is not disproportionate; conditions of the kind grafted in the lease are mandatory and their violation would invariably lead to cancellation of allotment, which alone serves the public interest

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India challenging cancellation of industrial plot allotment — Plot admeasuring 19,650 sq. mtrs. at Bolangir allotted vide letter dated 21.02.2005 for establishing Lodging & Boarding/Hotel on lease basis; registered lease deed dated 01.07.2005 (tenure up to 2084) conditioned on construction of a hotel building within twelve months — No building constructed for over a decade; breach of essential lease condition held established — Show cause notice dated 16.07.2014 issued and replied on 07.08.2014; contention of violation of natural justice rejected — Contention that cancellation is disproportionate to the violation also rejected; lease conditions of this kind held mandatory, their violation invariably leading to cancellation of allotment, which alone serves the public interest — Writ petition dismissed with costs made easy; petitioner directed to deliver back the plot within eight weeks, failing which retrieval with the aid of police.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) NO. 21510 OF 2014

¶2

In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶3

Kishore Kumar Ratha

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

-Versus-

¶6

Orissa Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation & Ors.

¶7

…. Opp. Parties

¶8

Advocates appeared in this case:

¶9

For Petitioner : M/s. Gourimohan Rath, S. Patnaik, S.S. Padhy & S. Satpathy, Advocates

¶10

For Opp. Parties: Mr. Pradipta Ku. Mohanty, Sr. Advocate, with M/s D.N. Mohapatra, J. Mohanty, P.K. Nayak, S.N. Das, A. Das & P. Mohanty, Advocates

¶11

CORAM:

¶12

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD

¶13

J U D G M E N T

¶14

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶15

Date of hearing & judgment : 08.09.2025

¶16

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶17

Page 1 of 8

¶18

PER DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD,J .

¶19

Petitioner is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the order dated 27.08.2014 issued by OP No.2 at Annexure-6, whereby allotment of plot made in his favour vide order dated 21.02.2005 has been cancelled.

¶20

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the validity of impugned order on the following grounds:

¶21

2.1. There is absolutely no fault on the part of petitioner, inasmuch as much time and money has been invested to bring the plot in question to the level, regard being had to its topography, and this aspect has not been looked into by the OP No.2.

¶22

2.2. Petitioner has not been given a reasonable opportunity before taking the extreme action of termination of allotment and therefore, the action is violative of principles of natural justice.

¶23

Page 2 of 8

¶24

2.3. The extreme action of rescinding the allotment, when the development is half a through, militates against the principle of proportionality and therefore, other alternate punitive actions should have been explored.

¶25

2.4. In the fact matrix of the case, petitioner ought to have been given one more opportunity to develop the plot in question and to start the business for which it has been allotted.

¶26

3. After service of notice the OPs have entered appearance through their learned panel counsel and opposed the petition making submission in justification of the impugned order. The panel counsel repels the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner stating that despite giving sufficient opportunity, petitioner has not developed the plot for starting the business and thus the purpose for which it has been allotted has been defeated. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the writ petition.

¶27

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:

¶28

Page 3 of 8

¶29

4.1. Admittedly, a plot admeasuring 19,650 sq. mtrs. at Bolangir was allotted to the petitioner vide letter dated 21.02.2005 at Annexure-1 for establishing industry, namely, Lodging & Boarding/Hotel on lease basis. On payment of Rs.10,80,750/-, petitioner got registered lease deed dated 01.07.2005 with a tenure up to 2084. It is one of the essential terms of the lease that petitioner should construct a hotel building within twelve months. Undisputedly, no building has been constructed, whatever be the arguable reason. Thus, there is breach of this condition.

¶30

4.2. Industrial plots are allotted to the entrepreneurs at a

¶31

concessional rate so that they develop the industries, which in turn would generate public/private employment and also adds to the economic growth of the region. An allottee, who does abide by the condition, thus would defeat the very purpose of allotment and thereby cause injustice to the public interest. He cannot be permitted to keep the plot vacant indefinitely with impunity. Had the said plot been allotted to another

¶32

Page 4 of 8

¶33

entrepreneur, that would have benefited the State in more than one way.

¶34

4.3. The vehement submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that he was not given a reasonable opportunity of hearing is liable to be rejected, inasmuch as he was given a show cause notice dated 16.07.2014 before taking the impugned action. Petitioner had sent a reply dated 07.08.2014 stating about some construction allegedly made on the plot and that further construction was in the process. There is absolutely no explanation whatsoever as to why for more than a decade nothing had been done, when a period of twelve months were prescribed. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that years were spent in making the subject site suitable for construction, and that some more time was taken for getting approval of the land, does not generate confidence, in the absence of material particulars, such as when actually the approval of building plan was sought for, what happened to the application for approval and when the construction started.

¶35

Page 5 of 8

¶36

Merely complaining that the officials of the answering OP did not visit the spot in question would not avail to his benefit. Construction of the structure ought to have been completed within one year and business too ought to have been commenced. However, all that did not happen, with one or the other excuses.

¶37

4.4. The last contention of the petitioner that the cancellation of allotment is grossly disproportionate to the alleged violation of lease conditions is again difficult to accede to. Ordinarily, private properties are acquired to form the industrial layouts and industrial sites are allotted to the entrepreneurs in a competitive bid or such other mode. The object is not just generating the funds but developing the industry and employment opportunities, so that the region would prosper. That is the rationale that underlies the condition of construction within twelve months and commencement of business. The very condition itself states that should that be not complied with, the allotment would be cancelled. Thus, with that understanding

¶38

Page 6 of 8

¶39

petitioner secured the allotment followed by a long lease. If concession in matters like this is shown, it would amount to placing premium on illegality. That apart, this Court would be laying a dangerous precedent which would have abundant abused potential. It should be loudly stated that conditions of the kind grafted in the lease are mandatory and their violation would invariably lead to cancellation of allotment. That alone would serve the public interest, regardless of arguable prejudice to the allottee who suffers cancellation.

¶40

In the above circumstances, this petition, being devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is, costs having been made easy. Petitioner is directed to deliver back the plot in question to the answering OPs within eight (8) weeks, failing which the same may be retrieved by the said OPs with the aid of police.

¶41

Web copy of this judgment to be acted upon by all concerned.

¶42

Dixit Krishna Shripad

¶43

Judge

¶44

Page 7 of 8

¶45

Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 8^th September, 2025/Amit

¶46

Signature Not Verified