JUDGMENT : Dr. D.P. Choudhury, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the illegal and arbitrary action of the Orissa Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation (hereinafter called “the IDCO”) in demanding an exorbitant extra cost towards the land allotted to the petitioner-company. FACTS 2. The unshorn details of the facts infiltrated are that the petitioner-company made an application to the IDCO for allotment of ten acres of land by way of lease deed for the purpose of establishment of fabrication, erection, mechanical equipments and mechanical spare units at Kalinga Nagar, Jajpur, which was purportedly allotted by the IDCO vide letter dated 16.12.2011 and the petitioner-Company was required to deposit an amount of Rs.33,55,000/- (Rupees Thirty-Three Lakhs Fifty-Five Thousand only) towards the cost of the land and subsequently, the said amount was deposited with the IDCO on 19.12.2011. After depositing the same, the IDCO issued a letter on 15.07.2013 with regard to allotment of ten acres of land in Village Manitira at Kalinga Nagar Growth Centre, Duburi under Danagadi Tahasil. 3. Be it stated that the land was allotted by the IDCO in pursuance of the decision of the 28th Land Allotment Committee (LAC) held on 08.05.2013 and 13th DLSWCA meeting Jajpur held on 07.07.2011. The petitioner-company was also asked to submit an affidavit to pay any differential land cost, which may arise out of the revision of land cost by Government of Orissa in future failing which the final allotment letter cannot be issued. Accordingly, the petitioner-Company submitted its affidavit it on 16.07.2013 before the IDCO on the condition that it would abide by the decision of the LAC in its 27th meeting held on 21.01.2013. 4. It is stated that on 21.06.2014, a lease deed was executed between the petitioner-Company and the IDCO in respect of the land in question and consequently, the delivery of possession was made. 5. The story of the petitioner-Company further goes to show that after delivery of possession was made, the petitioner-Company took steps to obtain loan from the Corporation Bank, Nayapalli Branch to the tune of Rs.8,90,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Crore Ninety Lakhs only) with Cash Credit limit of Rs.85,00,000/- (Rupees Eighty-Five Lakhs only). Although the amount was sanctioned, the Bank required No Objection Certificate (NOC). Although the amount was sanctioned, the Bank required No Objection Certificate (NOC). The petitioner-Company purportedly applied to the IDCO asking for issuance of NOC, but the opposite parties-IDCO issued a demand notice dated 08.02.2017 demanding Rs.70,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Lakhs only) towards differential land cost, which is challenged in this writ petition. On the other hand, the IDCO made pre-condition of deposit of such amount for issuance of NOC by the IDCO for grant of loan by the Bank to the petitioner. 6. Per contra, a counter affidavit has been filed by the IDCO stating therein that the IDCO had allotted a patch of land measuring Ac.10.00 in favour of the petitioner-Company at Kalinga Nagar Industrial Complex (KNIC) vide Letter No.24512 dated 16.12.2011 and Letter No.14544 dated 15.07.2013 for establishment of proposed fabrication, erection, mechanical equipments & mechanical spare units and possession was handed over to the petitioner-Company on 21.06.2014 after execution of the lease deed. 7. Be it stated that in pursuance of the 27th meeting of the LAC, the petitioner-Company submitted its affidavit on 16.07.2013 agreeing to pay the differential land cost and provisional land cost as revised by the Government of Odisha in future against the allotment of said extent of land in its favour. The IDCO admitted about the deposit of Rs.34,07,500/- (Rupees Thirty-Four Lakhs Seven Thousand and Five Hundred only) by the petitioner towards cost of the land, Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty-Five Thousand only) towards Industrial Infrastructure Up-gradation Scheme (IIUS) components, ground rent and cess. In the 97th meeting of the LAC held on 10.02.2014, the IDCO took a decision to revise the land rate at Kalinga Nagar Industrial Complex to the extent of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) per acre in respect of the land allotted between 21.01.2013 to 10.02.2014. This decision was taken as an additional agenda of the 97th Meeting of the Board of Directors held on 10.02.2014. As the petitioner-Company has already filed the affidavit agreeing to pay the enhanced cost of the land, the demand notice was issued to pay the differential land cost as a revised rate to the tune of Rs.70,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Lakhs only) for which there is no wrong on the part of the IDCO demanding extra cost of the land before issuance of NOC. 8. 8. Be it stated that due to enhance of the rate of the land and as the rate of the land was fixed in 2004, which is ten years before the meeting of the LAC and under the Orissa Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation Act, 1980 (hereinafter called as “the Act, 1980”), the IDCO has every right to enhance the rate of the land, it claimed that the action of the IDCO is lawful, correct and reasonable and should not be interfered for which the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. SUBMISSIONS Mr. Asim Amitav Das, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that ten acres of land has been allotted to the petitioner-Company provisionally on 16.12.2011 in pursuance of the decision taken by the 25th LAC held on 28.11.2011 at a concessional cost of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) per acre and Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) as IIUS component, i.e, at the rate of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty-Five Thousand only) per acre with other cost. But the IDCO made delay in executing the lease deed and giving delivery of possession. According to him, the IDCO, in its 27th LAC meeting held on 21.01.2013, took a decision to prescribe the detailed land schedule in the light of the decision taken for non-reduction of the width of 300 mtr. corridor as decided in Agenda No.I and II of the 26th LAC. 10. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner-Company further contended that there was no any direction of the IDCO in the first allotment letter dated 16.12.2011 asking the petitioner-Company to pay the additional cost, if any, required. But, subsequently in 2013, they asked for filing of the affidavit that any differential cost in future due to revision of the land cost by the Government, the petitioner-Company also filed affidavit on 16.7.2013 in continuous to the allotment made in 2011. According to him, the lease deed was executed by the IDCO in favour of the petitioner-Company on 12.08.2013 followed with delivery of possession. 11. Mr.Das, learned counsel for the petitioner-Company stated that when the petitioner-Company has already invested huge amount of money for starting the unit, it requires loan from the Bank but said Bank required NOC from the IDCO and accordingly on 17.12.2016 and 21.12.2016, the petitioner-Company requested the IDCO for issue of NOC in its favour for the purpose of mortgage of land with the Bank. According to him, the IDCO illegally demanded Rs.70,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Lakhs Only) as differential last cost arising out of revision of the land cost at Kalinga Nagar Industrial Complex by the Government since the petitioner has filed affidavit to pay the same. He again contended that once the land being allotted in the year 2011, the demand of further amount of Rs.70,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Lakhs Only) in spite of depositing the cost of the land before the execution of the lease deed is against the principles of law. The demand is made only when the petitioner asked for NOC from the IDCO and without the loan obtained from the Bank, the petitioner-Company cannot set up its unit. So, the subsequent demand is nothing but the harassment to the petitioner-Company. 12. Mr.Das, learned counsel for the petitioner-Company contended that the plea of the IDCO that the IDCO has taken the decision in its LAC meeting to enhance the land cost with regard to the land allotted in between 21.01.2013 to 10.02.2014 is illegal and unjust because the 97th meeting, being held on 30.01.2017 vide Annexure-G, cannot take a decision to revise the land rate which has been already allotted within ten years of first rate of the land fixed in 2004 and the same can be only prospective one. In alternative, he argued that even if assuming that the proceeding of the 97th LAC meeting is taken into consideration, it cannot affect the case of the petitioner as the original allotment was made in 2011 which is prior to the period to which the revision of land rate applies. 13. It is further submitted by Mr.Das, learned counsel for the petitioner-Company that the lease deed executed between the parties does not disclose that the NOC will not be issued unless the petitioner would pay the revise rate of the land cost because the terms and conditions under the lease deed are binding on the petitioner-Company as well as on the IDCO being executed bilaterally. 14. Unless the loan is obtained by the petitioner-Company, the terms and conditions for establishment of the unit by it cannot be fulfilled and the object of allotment of the land with the very purpose to establish the industrial unit at Kaling Nagar Industrial Complex, Jajpur would be frustrated. 14. Unless the loan is obtained by the petitioner-Company, the terms and conditions for establishment of the unit by it cannot be fulfilled and the object of allotment of the land with the very purpose to establish the industrial unit at Kaling Nagar Industrial Complex, Jajpur would be frustrated. So, he submitted to issue NOC without asking for payment of the additional cost of the land of Rs.70,00,000/-. 15. Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for the IDCO submitted that the allotment of the land made in the year 2011 and again it has been revised in 2013 with additional terms and conditions that the petitioner-Company had to pay the revised rate of the cost of the land as per the decision taken by the IDCO and the State Government. Accordingly, the petitioner-Company has voluntarily filed the affidavit to abide by such terms and conditions. He further stated that deed of lease was executed creating interest with the lessee is only on 12.08.2013 but not in 2011. According to him, under the provisions of the Act, 1980, the IDCO has to take action as per the decision of the LAC. In the instant case, LAC has taken the decision to allot ten acres of land in its 26th LAC meeting and accordingly, the letter was issued on 16.12.2011 to allot ten acres of schedule land in favour of the petitioner-Company and he has deposited the necessary consideration after which the lease deed was executed. But, in the said lease deed, it is clearly mentioned that the petitioner-Company being lessee, would abide by the terms and conditions in the allotment letter dated 16.12.2011 and 15.7.2013 and the decision taken in the LAC meeting of the IDCO. Not only this, but also the petitioner-Company has filed the affidavit to abide by the terms and conditions with regard to the revision of the cost of the land or any other IIUS for which the decision taken in 97th LAC meeting is binding on the petitioner-Company. He further submitted that the demand to pay Rs.70,00,000/- by the petitioner-Company is only in accordance with the terms and conditions between it in one hand and the IDCO in another hand for which there is no illegality in demanding the said amount as differential land cost. 16. It is further submitted by Mr. He further submitted that the demand to pay Rs.70,00,000/- by the petitioner-Company is only in accordance with the terms and conditions between it in one hand and the IDCO in another hand for which there is no illegality in demanding the said amount as differential land cost. 16. It is further submitted by Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for the IDCO that IDCO being a statutory authority, is bound by the statute and the LAC has got every right to take the decision for the larger interest of the State. The decision taken for enhancement of the cost of the land retrospectively or prospectively is to stand and the schedule land, being allotted after lease deed is executed on 12.08.2013 in pursuance of the letter dated 15.07.2013, the decision of the LAC to demand the differential cost of the land is neither illegal nor improper. Since the decision relates to the interest of the State, all the allottees in Karanjia Industrial Complex Centre, Jajpur, including the petitioner-Company cannot take the plea of discrimination towards the additional demand made by the IDCO. So, he prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 17. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION The main point for consideration is as to whether the demand of the IDCO to the petitioner-Company to pay the differential land cost as per the letter dated 08.02.2017 (Annexure-8) is illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in the eye of law? 18. DISCUSSIONS It is the admitted fact that the petitioner-Company has applied for allotment of the land for the purpose of establishing fabrication, erection, mechanical equipments and mechanical spare unit at Kalinga Nagar Industrial area. It is not in dispute that the petitioner-Company was allotted ten acres of land on 16.12.2011 by the IDCO on payment of cost of the land at the rate of Rs.3,00,000/- per acre and Rs.35,000/- per acre towards IIUS and in total, the petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs.34,07,500/- with the IDCO. It is also admitted that another allotment letter was issued on 15.07.2013 with a condition that additional cost, if approved by the Government/IDCO, the petitioner would be liable to pay the same before handing over the possession. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner filed affidavit in pursuance of the terms and conditions as specified in final allotment made on 15.07.2013 to pay the differential land cost arising out of revision of land at Kalinga Nagar. 19. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner filed affidavit in pursuance of the terms and conditions as specified in final allotment made on 15.07.2013 to pay the differential land cost arising out of revision of land at Kalinga Nagar. 19. Annexure-A shows that on 16.12.2011, the petitioner-Company was provisionally allotted ten acres of land being transferred by the State Government in favour of the IDCO under Kalinga Nagar P.S, Tahasil-Dangadi of Jajpur Sub-Division in pursuance of the decision taken on 25th LAC held on 28.11.2011. In that document, the concessional cost of ten acres of land was Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Only), i.e., Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Only) per acre as decided by the LAC and Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty-Five Thousand) as IIUS per acre, but this allotment was issued subject to final allotment where under the details of the land schedule, map and name of the village would be provided. Annexure-1 shows that on 15.07.2013, the final allotment was made with the same price but the petitioner-Company was asked to give an affidavit to pay the differential land cost arising out of revision of land cost of Kalinga Nagar by Government of Odisha/LAC, Kalinganagar/IDCO in future failing which the final allotment letter cannot be issued. Thus, in the final allotment letter, a condition was stipulated therein to file affidavit with the undertaking that the petitioner would pay the differential last cost. 20. Annexure-2 shows that the petitioner-Company filed affidavit agreeing to pay the differential land cost arising out of final land cost and provisional land cost as revised by the Government of Odisha in future. In that affidavit also, it was stated that the petitioner-Company agreed to abide by the decision by the LAC in its meeting 27th meeting held on 21.01.2013. 21. The 27th LAC meeting was convened on 21.01.2013 vide Annexure-3 and under Agenda No.VIII, it was described that the matter would be put up as a revised agenda in the next LAC with the detailed land schedule in the light of the decision taken for non-reduction of the width of 300 mtr corridor. Thus, it appears that the said meeting would only relate to details of the land schedule but not with regard to enhancement of the rate of the land. 22. Thus, it appears that the said meeting would only relate to details of the land schedule but not with regard to enhancement of the rate of the land. 22. In the aforesaid affidavit, the petitioner-Company unconditionally agreed to pay the enhanced land cost but till then there is no extra land cost, which was notified later and the petitioner admittedly had already paid Rs.34,07,500/- as per the terms and conditions made in the provisional allotment as well as in the final allotment letter. 23. Lease deed vide Annexure-4 shows that on 12.08.2013, the same was executed as per the allotment letters dated 16.12.2011 and 15.07.2013 on the condition to pay the consideration of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Only), i.e. at the rate of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Only) per acre and thus, lease was granted for ninety years. Clause-38 of the said lease deed shows that the petitioner-Company shall abide by the provision of the Act, 1980 and the decision of the IDCO from time to time with terms and conditions of the allotment letters dated 16.12.2011 and 15.07.2013. The lease deed also does not disclose about any revision in the land cost. Since it is agreed by the petitioner-Company and the IDCO with the terms and conditions in the provisional as well as final allotment are also binding on them, they become part and parcel of the terms of the conditions of the lease deed. Moreover, the concerned lease deed is followed with delivery of possession of the scheduled land. 24. The terms and conditions in the final allotment letter, as stated below, directs the petitioner to pay the differential land cost arising out of revision of land in question by IDCO in future failing which the final allotment cannot be issued. On the other hand, if there was any differential land cost to be paid, the final allotment letter dated 15.07.2013 could not have been issued. Also consequential lease deed could not have been executed in the event of non-payment of any additional cost. But, it is admitted by the IDCO that the petitioner has already deposited Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Only) as the cost of the land and Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Fifty Thousand) towards IIUS. 25. Under the Act, 1980, the IDCO has been endowed with power to allot land. The manner of allotment has also been prescribed in the regulation framed under the Act. 25. Under the Act, 1980, the IDCO has been endowed with power to allot land. The manner of allotment has also been prescribed in the regulation framed under the Act. When there is lease deed with terms and conditions between the parties and the petitioner-Company has filed the affidavit, undoubtedly the same are binding on both parties. 26. Mr.Das, learned counsel for the petitioner-Company submitted that even if the terms and conditions are binding, but the impugned document vide Annexure-8 is contrary to the terms and conditions because the said letter does not contain about the original provisional allotment contents and the terms and conditions embodied in the final allotment letter. Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for the IDCO submitted that there is no wrong in issuing Annexure-8 because it is supported by the decision taken by the LAC. 27. Annexure-8 shows that the IDCO has written letter stating that in the final allotment letter dated 15.07.2013, there was a condition that he petition-Company has submitted an affidavit to pay the differential land cost arising out of revision of land cost of Kalinganagar by Government of Odisha/LAC, Kalinganagar/IDCO in future. But on going through the letter dated 15.07.2013, it simply shows that the petitioner-Company was to file affidavit to pay the differential land cost before the final allotment is issued. In fact the letter dated 15.07.2013 vide Annexure-1 is the final allotment letter and the affidavit of the petitioner vide Annexure-2 is only one declaration by the petitioner-Company to pay the differential land cost after the same being revised by the Government of Orissa in future, of course subject to the decision by the LAC in its 27th meeting held on 21.01.2013. It is reiterated that vide minutes of the 27th LAC meeting, no such revision of land cost was discussed and there is only discussion as to allotment of land with specific land schedule. 28. Learned counsel for the IDCO drew attention of the Court to the proceedings of the 97th Board meeting of IDCO, which was a statutory meeting, held by the IDCO. 28. Learned counsel for the IDCO drew attention of the Court to the proceedings of the 97th Board meeting of IDCO, which was a statutory meeting, held by the IDCO. In that meeting, there was discussion on the revision of the cost of the land and in that meeting, the IDCO felt to revise the cost of the land as it was ten years old because the rate of the land at Kalinganagar Industrial Complex was only fixed on 28.09.2004 at Rs.3,00,000/- per acre and Rs.35,000/- per acre towards IIUS. Annexure-G shows that the IDCO, vide Agenda No.IV, took the following decision: “AGENDA No.IV-Date of effectiveness of revised land rate in Kalinga Nagar Industrial Complex, (KNIC). The mater was placed before the Committee. A detail discussion was made with reference to allotment letter, CAG report and the office documents submitted at the time of allotment. The mater has been decided on the principle decided in the 27th Land Allotment Committee meeting held on 21.01.2013 and in this context, the KNIC land rate has been revised in additional agenda of the 97th Board of Directors of IDCO meeting held on 10.02.2014. So the Industries allotted land in between the 27th LAC meeting held on 21.01.2013 to 10.02.2014 (Date of revision of land rate) are also liable to pay the revised land rate i.e, Rs.10.00/- lakhs per acre. It was decided that these allottee Company will be asked to pay the differential land cost.” 29. From the aforesaid proceeding of the Corporation, it appears that the industries allotted land in between 21.1.2013 to 10.02.2014 are also liable to pay the revised land rate, i.e,. Rs.10,00,000/- per acre. It also appears from the above proceeding that the decision was taken on 10.02.2014 in the 97th Board meeting of IDCO and the rate of the land was fixed in 2004 and having felt to revise the land rate after ten years, the revision of the rate of the land is made but it is not available from the said proceeding as to why the land allotted by the end of ten years, particularly from 21.01.2013 to 10.02.2014 was allowed to be revised. Wherever there is a decision, it must be followed with reasons. If at all the land allotted to after 21.01.2013 is allowed to be revised, why the allotment of land made before 21.01.2013 is left out. Wherever there is a decision, it must be followed with reasons. If at all the land allotted to after 21.01.2013 is allowed to be revised, why the allotment of land made before 21.01.2013 is left out. If at all the IDCO has the necessity to revise the land cost, it could have been done on 21.01.2013 itself but it was done on 10.02.2014 because ten years from the last revision rate of land in 2004 had not passed. So, the decision to revise the cost of the land for the allottees including the present petitioner between 21.01.2013 to 10.02.2014 is not only beyond the policy of the Government, but also discriminatory between the allottees of land by the IDCO. On the other hand, the petitioner-Company suffers from such discrimination by the IDCO and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 30. Apart from this, the LAC has taken the decision under the Act to make valuation of the land cost but it must be supported by the decision of the Government to make it retrospective. The decision taken by the IDCO to enhance the cost with retrospective effect has no strength to stand due to lack of policy of the State Government supporting it because either it should be issued with approval of the concerned Administration Department of the State Government or it must obtain the post-facto approval. In absence of any reason, such notification must be deemed to be prospective one. 31. In view of the observations, as indicated above, the final allotment of the land being made on 15.07.2013 followed with the execution of the lease deed dated 12.08.2013, which is prior to 10.02.2014, it must be held that such revision of the cost of the land will not affect the land allotted to the petitioner. The point is answered accordingly. 32. CONCLUSION Mr. Asim Amitav Das, learned counsel for the petitioner-Company submitted that the IDCO has not issued NOC and on the other hand, issued Annexure-8, the demand to pay the differential cost of the land to the tune of Rs.70,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Lakhs Only). At the same time, it has been prayed to quash Annexure-8 because the petitioner-Company is not bound by the minutes of the 97th LAC meeting. At the same time, it has been prayed to quash Annexure-8 because the petitioner-Company is not bound by the minutes of the 97th LAC meeting. We are of the considered view that since the land of the petitioner-Company has been allotted before 10.02.2014 and the decision of the 97th Board meeting of IDCO is prospective in nature, the letter under Annexure-8 directing the petitioner-Company to pay the revised rate of the cost of the land is illegal and unjust and liable to be quashed and the Court do so. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.