B.R. Sarangi, J.The petitioner, which is a small scale industry and a company registered under the Companies Act, has filed this writ application challenging the order dated 16.3.1995 in Annexure-5 with regard to allotment of additional land measuring Ac. 0.502 bearing Hal Plot No. 52(Ac. 0.308) and Plot No. 109 (Ac. 0.194) under Hal Khata No. 1072 in Unit-32, mouza Gobindaprasad corresponding to Sabik Plot No. 843(pt.) and Plot No. 848(pt) under Sabik Khata No. 314 of Sabik mouza Kalaraput and the order dated 31.1.1998, 6.4.1998 and 27.1.2000 under Annexures-7, 9 and 10 respectively passed by opposite party no. 2 in not considering allotment of additional Government land for industrial purposes in accordance with the provisions of IPR, 1979-83 or in accordance with IPR, 1980 when the recommendations were made for such allotment by the General Manager, DIC, Puri and further seeks for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing to revise/ modify formal allotment order by fixing the premium cost of the land at the rate fixed by the Government under IPR 1980. The petitioner also seeks to allow reasonable time to pay premium at the revised rate. The petitioner being a small scale industrial unit registered with the District Industries Centre, Puri having permanent registration bearing Certificate No. 15/15/01224/PMT/SSI dated 24.5.1978, which is engaged in manufacture of wooden furniture, educational apparatus, interior decoration etc. and also the petitioner-Unit is registered under the Companies Act, 1956. Due to requirement of additional land for stacking logs, construction of rest sheds, godown for finished products etc., the petitioner submitted an application to the General Manager, D.I.C., Puri for allotment of Government land adjacent to the petitioners land. After due processing and/or enquiry, the General Manager, DIC, Puri in turn made a recommendation to the erstwhile Estate Officer, P & S Department for allotment of Govt. land measuring Ac. 0.635 in the name of the Proprietor of the Industrial Unit, for which site plan and land schedule were sent to the Estate Officer by the D.I.C., Puri vide letter No. 2107 dated 5.2.1979. On consideration of the same, opposite party no. 2 issued formal allotment order on 16.3.1995 vide Annexure-5 for allotment of additional land by charging premium of the land at Rs. 20,08,000/- only at the rate of Rs. 40,00,000/- per acre and the said allotment has been made for residential purposes not for any other purpose. Being aggrieved by such allotment in Annexure-5, the petitioner made a representation to the Chief Minister, Orissa praying therein to revise the cost of the land in accordance with the provisions of IPR-1979-83 or IPR-1980 with a further prayer to allow suitable time to pay the premium of the land at the revised rate. Since no action was taken on such representation dated 10.5.1995, the petitioner approached this Court in O.J.C. No. 16361 of 1997 seeking for disposal of the same, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 5.1.1998 directing the Director, Estates to dispose of the said representation by 31.1.1998. In compliance to the order of this Court, opposite party no. 2 disposed of the representation stating inter alia that the additional land measuring an area Ac. 0.502 in mouza Govinda Prasad, Bhubaneswar is hereby allotted for "industrial" purpose and hence the word residential appearing in paragraph 3 of G.A. Department order no. 3492/CA dated 16.3.1995 may be read as Industrial. The other terms and conditions of the said order remained unaltered and the premium has been charged for the allotted land at the prevalent "industrial" rate vide order dated 31.1.1998 under Annexure-7. However, the petitioner made a further representation on 7.3.1998 for reconsideration of the matter as to charging of premium at the rate existing as per IPR 1979-83 or in accordance with IPR-1980. On consideration of such representation, opposite party no. 2 rejected the same indicating that for charging of premium at the rate existing in 1979-83 or in accordance IPR 1980 merits no consideration. Being aggrieved by the order dated 6.4.1998 under Annexure-9, the petitioner again approached this Court in O.J.C. No. 14271 of 1998 and this Court by order dated 16.9.1999 disposed of the same with a direction to reconsider the prayer of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order. In compliance to the said order, opposite party no. 2 rejected the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that the Saw Mill is declared ineligible to get incentive under IPR-1980 and it has been indicated in the said order that since M/s. Rajdhani Timber Products Pvt. Ltd. is engaged in sawing of timber, the unit is ineligible to get the benefits and facilities declared under the IPR-1980 pursuant to the view offered by the Industries Department. The said communication has been made by the G.A. Department by letter dated 27.1.2000 under Annexure-10. Therefore, being aggrieved by the order passed under Annexures-5, 7, 9 and 10, the present writ application has been filed.

2. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the opposite parties. It is specifically urged that the land schedule and site plan were not furnished through the Industries Department though the General Manager, GIC, Puri was requested vide G.A. Department letter No. 5356 dated 6.6.1979 to submit the proposal through the said department. Therefore, furnishing of the land schedule and site plan vide letter no. 2106 dated 5.2.1979 is not in conformity with the requirement of law. It is categorically stated that the applicant should have applied to the Director, Estates for allotment of land with the recommendation of the Industries Department and as the petitioner has not observed the procedure for allotment till 1988, he is not entitled to avail the concessions granted by IPRs with regard to the land. It is further stated that due to encroachment of Government land by the petitioner, OPP Case No. 131/77(L) was initiated against the petitioner under the provisions of the O.P.P. Act 1972 and pursuant to Section 5(ii) of the O.P.P. Act, order has been passed by the Estate Officer for eviction of the unauthorized encroachment. However, since a patch of Government land is surrounded by private land and there is no approach road to the Government land, the process of eviction could not be done. It is further stated that though the petitioner vide letter dated 20.9.1988 has stated that his firm M/s. Rajdhani Timbers (P.) Ltd. is merged with a private limited company, in which he is the Managing Director, no such document in that regard was submitted. As per the Government policy, the premium of the land is usually fixed at the prevailing rate on the date of issue of allotment order and double of that rate when the land is under encroachment. Such procedure was followed in the present case. That apart, it is further stated that the petitioner has not deposited the premium and executed the lease deed and the prevailing rate of premium was fixed in consultation with the Finance Department. However, the representation made by the petitioner to charge premium of land prevailing at the time of consideration of the proposal was not accepted and the area measuring Ac. 0.502 bearing Hal Plot No. 52(Ac. 0.308) and Plot No. 109(Ac. 0.194) under Hal Khata No. 1072 in Unit-32, mouza Gobindaprasad corresponding to Sabik Plot No. 843(pt.) and Plot No. 848(pt) under Sabik Khata No. 314 of Sabik mouza Kalaraput was allotted in favour of the petitioner vide G.A. Department Order No. 3492 dated 16.3.1995 subject to payment of Rs. 20,08,000/- towards premium @ Rs. 40,00,000/- per acre, which was the prevalent rate applicable for industrial purposes. Thus, it is stated that since the allottee did not deposit the premium within the stipulated time, the allotment order automatically stands cancelled by operation of the order of the Government. Due to encroachment of the land bearing Plot No. 52, area Ac. 0.308, plot no. 109, Ac. 0.194 and plot no. 110(pt.) Ac. 0.030 totalling Ac. 0.532 in Hal Khata No. 1072 recorded in the name of the G.A. Department in Unit 32, mouza Gobindaprasad as per G.A. Department R.I. report dated 26.8.2007 and the joint enquiry report of the Bhubaneswar Development Authority and G.A. Department dated 28.5.2007, the petitioner has illegally constructed buildings over the said Government land, which is nothing but a brazen act to grab the Government land. Therefore, it is stated that the so-called request for settlement of land for industrial purpose is nothing but a clear case of misrepresentation and suppression of facts before this Court. The opposite parties have also stated that the petitioner, who is now owner of M/s. Manorama Properties (P) Ltd. has constructed two storied buildings over the case land, which proves that with due defiance of the order of the Government and with a mala fide intent to grab the most valuable piece of the Government land and to utilize the same for real estate purpose, but not for timber trade products as claimed in the writ application.

3. The petitioner, who claims equity, has not come to this Court with clean hand. From the contentions raised in the writ application and the counter affidavit filed by the opposite parties, it is apparently clear that the petitioner seeks allotment of additional land for industrial purposes, which has been duly considered by the Government and vide Annexure-5 premium has been fixed, which was directed to be paid. Instead of depositing the premium, for some reason or other, the petitioner tries to delay the same and as such due to non-compliance of the conditions stipulated in the allotment order in Annexure-5, he having been in unauthorized occupation of the case land, encroachment case was initiated in which eviction order has been passed, but the eviction process could not be done as the same is surrounded by residential houses. But fact remains, the petitioner is not entitled to get the benefits of IPR 1979-83 and IPR-1980 as claimed by him so far as the land is concerned, thereby the opposite parties having considered the facts in proper perspective directed the petitioner to deposit the premium amount as determined by the Government to the small scale industrial unit, so that the land may be settled even though he has represented time and again having not paid the same within the time frame vide Annexure-5, the allotment so made has been automatically cancelled in terms of clause-7. Apart from the same, the petitioner-Unit has been engaged in manufacture of wooden furnitures, educational apparatus, interior decoration etc. the purpose for which the industry has been established, but the same has been closed pursuant to the direction of the apex Court. More so, the application, which was to be submitted to the opposite party for allotment of the case land, the same should have been rooted through the Industries Department of the Government and the same having not been done, the benefit claimed, cannot be made available to the petitioner.

4. The apex Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India and Others, while considering the provisions contained in the Environment (Protection) Act (29 of 1986), issued direction as to licensing of wood based industries and placed a complete moratorium on new licences for five years. In paragraph 3 of the said judgment under the heading Licensing under clause 12 it is stated that "Licenses given to all wood based industries shall stand suspended".

5. In view of such direction being given by the apex Court, the State Government has complied the same directing that the licences granted to all wood based industries shall stand suspended, consequence thereof, the licence granted to the petitioner, which is a small scale industry engaged in manufacture of wooden furniture, educational apparatus, interior decoration etc, has also been suspended and as such, the purpose for which the petitioner required the additional land having been failed, the question of allotment of the same does not arise.

6. For the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs, we are of the opinion that cancellation/non-allotment of additional land in favour of the petitioner is wholly and fully justified. Accordingly, the writ application fails and the same is dismissed. No cost.

S. Panda, J.

I agree.