HANUMAN ENTERPRISERS Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M/s. Hanuman Enterprisers, which was represented by its sole proprietor-cum-original lessee Late Braja Sundar Dash and other petitioners, who are the legal representatives of such lessee in invoking the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by way of this writ petition have prayed to quash the order of cancellation of lease granted to original lessee by IDCO for land in Plot No. A/23 located in Chandaka Industrial Estate and order dtd. 4/9/2015 passed under Annexure-17 by which the appeal of the petitioners for revocation of cancellation of lease of M/s. Hanuman Enterprisers was rejected by Chief General Manager, MSME.

(2.) Briefly stated, the fact concerning the claim in writ petition are that in order to establish a Labour-Intensive Small Spices and Wheat Grinding Unit, Late Braja Sundar Dash who was the predecessor-in-interest of petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 had applied to Orissa Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation (IDCO)-cum-OP No.2 for allotment of a piece of land in Chandaka Industrial Estate on lease. After due consideration of the said application and examining the viability of industrial unit, OP No.2 agreed to lease out a piece of land measuring an area Ac.0.103dec appertaining to IDCO Plot No. A/23 corresponding to Revenue Plot No. 6(3) of Khata No.493 of Mouza Patia, Bhubaneswar in the year 2003 and a lease deed was executed between Late Braja Sundar Dash and OP No.2 which was registered on 16/10/2003 for a consideration of Rs.1,28,750.00. On the basis of said lease deed, Late Braja Sundar Dash applied to Bhubaneswar Development Authority seeking permission to establish the unit on the lease hold land and after obtaining sanction, the unit was established and functioned by providing work to many unemployed persons and the late proprietor was regularly paying rent, cess, electricity bill etc. for the unit. In the year 2007, the opposite party initiated a proceeding against the late proprietor Braja Sundar Dash vide EUO Case No. 107 of 2007 and passed order therein cancelling the allotment/lease in respect of said land on the ground of delay in establishing the unit, but Late Braja Sundar Dash approached the Estate Court which on being satisfied by an order passed on 12/3/2010 recalled the order of cancellation of lease and the said proprietor Late Braja Sundar Dash deposited a sum of Rs.10,000.00 towards processing fee for revocation of cancellation of lease, but unfortunately Braja Sundar Dash expired on 24/6/2011. According to the petitioners, since right in lease is heritable one, they succeeded to the lease hold property in terms of Clause-6 of the lease deed and they filed an application before OP No.3 enclosing all the documents praying to transfer the leasehold property in their favour. It is the further case of the petitioners that there was a death of a labour in the unit and since it was very difficult to run the unit, they had sought permission of the authority for establishing hotel, restaurant and computer servicing center along with spice and wheat grinding unit in the leasehold land for their sustenance, but unfortunately the Divisional Head, BCD-II, Bhubaneswar rejected their application for transfer of leasehold land by cancelling the lease vide an order passed on 10/1/2015 and upon receiving the notice of cancellation, the petitioners assailed the said order before this Court in W.P.(C) No. No. 2933 of 2015 wherein liberty was granted to the petitioners to file an appeal before the Competent Authority and the petitioners, thereafter, preferred an appeal before the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, IDCO by inter alia taking a ground that the order of cancellation of lease against a dead person is contrary to law, but said appeal was rejected by the Chief General Manager (MSME), Bhubaneswar vide an order passed under Annexure-14. Challenging Annexure-14, the petitioners again approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 7357 of 2015 which was disposed of by this Court with an order passed on 11/5/2015 by setting aside the order of rejection of cancellation of allotment of leasehold land and directed the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, IDCO to rehear the appeal of the petitioners afresh and decide the same by giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners in the matter. Upon personal hearing petitioner No.2, the Chairman-cum-Managing Director passed an order on 4/9/2015 under Annexure-17 rejecting the appeal on the ground that the land has not been utilized for industrial purpose for which it was leased out, which was the basis for granting of lease to the late proprietor. Feeling aggrieved with such order under Annexure-17, hence this writ petition by the petitioners.

(3.) In response to the notice of the writ petition, the State-cum-OP No.1 filed its counter affidavit stating inter alia that the issue involved in the writ petition is an interse dispute between the IDCO and the petitioners and the Industries Department has nothing to say about the claim of the petitioners. On the other hand, OP Nos. 2 and 3 by entering appearance have jointly filed their counter affidavit denying all the allegations made against them and inter alia challenging the claim of the petitioners mainly on the ground of utilization of lease hold land by the petitioners not for the purpose it was leased out and utilization of leasehold land contrary to the terms and conditions of lease deed.