Robert Steel Tube Co. Ltd. had applied for allotment of 2500 acres of land on 30-6-1994 and in principle approval of allotment of 2500 acres of land was given on the terms and conditions laid down in the policy decision

The fact of the case is similar to the fact of 'Orissa Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporate vs. M/S MESCO Kalinga Steel Limited and Others' (With CA No. 2546/2017 (@ SLP (C) No. 23759/2007 and CA No.2547/2017 (@ SLP (C) No.2683/2008)). In this matter, the possession of land had been enjoyed by the company for around seven years without execution of the lease deed. No explanation has been placed on record for inaction on part of the company. In this regard, the company has also not been able to prove that they were not negligent even after the timely initiation by the authorities for the execution of the lease deed with the Corporation. The transfer had become void due to the company's own lapse and negligence. The company had forfeited the right to get the lease deed executed, as in the absence of execution of lease deed, the relationship of lessor and lessee never came into being under the legal perspectives. The company waited for years after taking possession. The company is statutory authority - and it can act on the basis of written lease deed. The execution of the lease deed is necessary and it is in the public interest to prevent unauthorized leasing out of property on its behalf. Lease is required to be executed in a presented format in the shape of formal development which is a sine qua non as per the law of the land. In the absence thereof, it would not be permissible to hold the relationship of lessor and the lessee. The corporation is a statutory body and can act only in the mode prescribed. Further, one has to be aware of the fact that 'ignorantia legis neminem excusat', means Ignorance of Law is no excuse. In this paradigm, the company should be aware of the legal procedure post the allotment of the land and should be ready to accept the consequences for ignoring the required process of the law to be observed by them. The conduct of the company was not in line with the compliances and responsibilities required to be adhered under law, as it remained negligent in executing the lease deed. There was no contract which could have been enforced and it became void due to inaction of the company itself. The conduct of the company had no justification at any point of time not to execute the lease deed. Henceforth, there is no equitable or legal consideration in favor of the company, wherein they could succeed in its petition against the Corporation. Therefore, the company will not succeed in its petition against the Corporation.