JUDGMENT : C. Nagappan, C.J. - Petitioners, claiming to be the inhabitants of village Kolathapangi have filed this writ petition by way of Public Interest Litigation seeking to quash the order of the Collector-opp. Party No. 3 dated 19.01.2011 under Annexure-5 de-reserving the lands measuring Ac.36.10 dec. under Khata No. 116 corresponding to plot No. 167 (part) in Mouza Kolathapangi; and further sought for declaration that the allotment of the said land in favour of O.P. No. 7-Company is illegal. Briefly, the case of the petitioners is that the O.P. No. 7-Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. signed an MOU with the State Government, namely, opposite party No. 1 on 10.11.2006 for establishment of 1.5 MTPA Split Cement Grinding Unit at Khamara Nuagaon and Kolathapangi under Athagarh Tahsil in the district of Cuttack with project cost of Rs. 300 Crores. The Industrial Promotion and Investment Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (IPICOL) vide letter dated 09.06.2010 recommended IDCO-O.P. No. 6 that Ac.90.00 of land at the said villages may be alienated in favour of O.P. No. 7 for establishment of the 1.5 MTPA Split cement grinding unit. Pursuant to said recommendation, O.P. No. 6-IDCO made requisition for alienation of government land measuring Ac.36.100 in village Kolathapangi vide letter No. 17611 dated 26.08.2010 for the purpose of establishment of the said industry. Thereafter, O.P. No. 4 initiated a de-reservation case vide Lease Misc. Case No. 4/2010 under the provisions of Orissa Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 (in short "the OGLS Act") to de-reserve the said land and invited public objections by issuing proclamation. According to the petitioners, they along with some other co-villagers filed their written objection stating that cattle and livestock used to graze in the said Gochar land, the said land is also used by the villagers for organizing various social functions, the youth and the children of the village are also using the said land as play ground, and further setting up of the said industry will lead to environmental problems. On 08.12.2010 personal hearing as well as spot inspection was conducted by the Tahsildar, Athagarh-O.P. No. 4 and after completion of the necessary formalities, the O.P. No. 4 overruling the objections, vide letter dated 18.12.2010 recommended the O.P. No. 3 that the subject land be de-reserved. On 08.12.2010 personal hearing as well as spot inspection was conducted by the Tahsildar, Athagarh-O.P. No. 4 and after completion of the necessary formalities, the O.P. No. 4 overruling the objections, vide letter dated 18.12.2010 recommended the O.P. No. 3 that the subject land be de-reserved. The Collector-O.P. No. 3 by order dated 19.01.2011 accepted the recommendation of the Tahsildar and directed for de-reservation of the said land in exercise of power u/s 3A of the OGLS Act read with Rule 4 of the OGLS Rules, 1983 and sanctioned release of the said land in favour of IDCO and thereafter sanction order was issued. According to the petitioners, during pendency of the Lease Misc. Case No. 4/2010, they along with their co-villagers approached the O.P. No. 2 by way of a representation dated 10.11.2010 stating that their case was not heard in proper manner and their objections were not appreciated properly. On receipt of the said representation, the O.P. No. 2 directed the Collector, Cuttack-O.P. No. 3 to look into the matter, however, the said direction of O.P. No. 2 was not complied with. In the meanwhile, lease deed was executed between the Collector, Cuttack and IDCO for transfer of 36.100 acres of land in village Kolathapangi on 18.07.2011 and subsequently the IDCO-O.P. No. 6 allotted the said extent of land in favour of O.P. No. 7-Company vide letter dated 8.8.2011 for establishment of the said industry and accordingly lease deed also came to be executed on 19.8.2011 between the IDCO and O.P. No. 7. It is also stated by the petitioners that the State Pollution Control Board (SPCB), namely, O.P. No. 5 has granted consent to O.P. No. 7 for setting up of a Bulk Terminal of capacity 2.0 MTPA under the relevant provisions of Acts. 2. Petitioners have stated that the subject land is a communal land and has been kept reserved for common use of villagers and there is no specific provision for de-reservation of such land for industrial purpose when industry is set up by a private company like O.P. No. 7 and further the de-reservation of Gochar land in question has not been made in accordance with the provisions of the OGLS Act. Therefore, handing over the land in favour of O.P. No. 7 is perverse and illegal and accordingly the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 3. Opposite party Nos. Therefore, handing over the land in favour of O.P. No. 7 is perverse and illegal and accordingly the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 3. Opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 have filed a common counter affidavit stating that the orders impugned have been passed strictly inconsonance with Section 3A of the OGLS Act and Rule 4 of the OGLS Rules and there is no illegality in the decision making process. It is stated that during the public hearing, the writ petitioners did not make any objection and though some other villagers filed their objections, the same were considered and overruled and the de-reservation proceedings for allotment of said government land to IDCO is proper and legal. 4. Opposite party No. 5, namely, State Pollution Control Board in its counter has stated that after receipt of application from O.P. No. 7 for grant of consent to establish the industrial unit in question, the proposed site was inspected by the Scientists of the Board on 10.08.2011 and the report was placed before the Consent Committee of the Board for consideration and the Board after considering the inspection report and the recommendation, vide order dated 01.11.2011 granted consent in favour of O.P. No. 7 to establish the industrial unit subject to conditions as stipulated therein. 5. Opposite party No. 6-IDCO in its counter affidavit has stated that the Collector, Cuttack has sanctioned lease of the government land in question in favour of IDCO for establishment of industries under the provisions of the OGLS Act and Rules made thereunder after completion of all the formalities in accordance with law and subsequently it has allotted the said land in favour of O.P. No. 7 executing lease deed by observing legal formalities and therefore, the allegations made by the petitioners are not sustainable. It is further stated that since there is a provision of appeal u/s 7 of the OGLS Act against any order made u/s 3 of the Act and the petitioners have not availed the same, the present writ petition is not maintainable. 6. Opposite party No. 7 has also filed an elaborate counter affidavit denying the allegations made by the petitioners and has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. We have heard the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as respective learned counsel for opposite parties. 8. 6. Opposite party No. 7 has also filed an elaborate counter affidavit denying the allegations made by the petitioners and has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. We have heard the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as respective learned counsel for opposite parties. 8. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the opposite parties in utmost disregard to the provisions of law governing the field has proceeded to de-reserve the communal lands so as to sub-serve the interests of a private company, namely, O.P. No. 7. 9. Per contra learned Advocate General vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the petitioners and contended that the land in question is a government land and de-reservation orders have been passed following the procedure stipulated under the OGLS Act and OGLS Rules and as the petitioners have not filed any objection during the public hearing they cannot raise any grievance in this writ petition as there is no illegality in the decision making process. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Jharkhand and Others Vs. Pakur Jagran Manch and Others, 10. Opposite party No. 7 was earlier known as M/s. Grasim Industries Ltd. and it had entered into the MOU with the State Government i.e. O.P. No. 1 for establishment of 1.5 MTPA Split Cement Grinding Unit at Khamara Nuagaon and Kolathapangi under Athagarh Tahsil in the district of Cuttack with project cost of Rs. 300 Crores. IPICOL vide its letter dated 09.06.2010 recommended IDCO-O.P. No. 6 that Ac.90.00 of land at the said villages may be alienated in favour of O.P. No. 7 for establishment of the said unit and Annexure-1 is a photo copy of the said letter. The O.P. No. 6, namely, IDCO filed requisition dated 26.08.2010 for alienation of government land measuring Ac.36.100 in village Kolathapangi for the purpose of establishment of the said industry and Annexure-2 is the photo copy of the said letter. Consequently, O.P. No. 4-Tahsildar, Athagarh initiated a de-reservation case vide Lease Misc. Case No. 4/2010 to de-reserve said land measuring Ac.36.100 dec. under Khata No 116 corresponding to Plot No. 167 (P) of the said village. Consequently, O.P. No. 4-Tahsildar, Athagarh initiated a de-reservation case vide Lease Misc. Case No. 4/2010 to de-reserve said land measuring Ac.36.100 dec. under Khata No 116 corresponding to Plot No. 167 (P) of the said village. Proclamation inviting objections was served in the Gram Panchayat and also in the village by beating of drums, but the present writ petitioners did not file any objections whatsoever though some other villagers filed their objections before the Tahsildar. Grievances were heard and after making spot inspection the same were overruled and the Tahsildar submitted the report on the de-reservation proposal of the said land before the Sub-Collector, Athagarh, who recommended the same to the Collector, Cuttack for further action. Thereafter, O.P. No. 3-Collector, Cuttack in exercise of power conferred u/s 3A of the OGLS Act and Rule 4 of the OGLS Rules, accorded sanction to the de-reservation of the said Gochar land measuring Ac.36.100 dec. for its eventual lease in favour of IDCO for industrial purpose and copy of the said order is found under Annexure-5. 11. Power to de-reserve the government land recorded as 'Gochar' is provided u/s 3A of the OGLS Act and the stipulation is that such power is to be exercised by an officer not below the rank of a Collector authorized by the Government on its behalf. Rule 4 of the OGLS Rules prescribe the procedure to be followed in making such de-reservation which includes, inter alia, a public notice followed by an enquiry and recommendation. In this context, the decision of the Supreme Court relied on by the learned Advocate General referred to above is relevant, in which their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that the contention of the first respondent therein that "once a gochar always a gochar, and there is no power in anyone at any time, to alter its status as gochar" is without merit and proceeded further to observe that the de-reservation of any government land reserved as gochar should only be in exceptional circumstances and for valid reasons. 12. In the present case, the de-reservation has been made following the due procedure contemplated under the OGLS Act and Rules. Further, during enquiry it was found that there was Ac.56.33 dec. of Gochar land in village Kolathapangi and the effective area of the village is Ac.278.25 dec., 5% of the same is Ac.13.91 dec. 12. In the present case, the de-reservation has been made following the due procedure contemplated under the OGLS Act and Rules. Further, during enquiry it was found that there was Ac.56.33 dec. of Gochar land in village Kolathapangi and the effective area of the village is Ac.278.25 dec., 5% of the same is Ac.13.91 dec. The IDCO has applied only for an area of Ac.36.10 dec. for de-reservation and the rest available is Ac.20.23 dec. as surplus gochar land and said Ac.36.10 dec. of land is undulated, unfit for grazing and is waste land and therefore the objections raised also were overruled being devoid of merit. In such circumstances, the contention of the present writ petitioners that the de-reservation of land in question, recorded as Gochar, has been made without following due procedure is without any merit and liable to be rejected. 13. The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the alienation of Ac.36.100 dec. of land by way of lease to O.P. No. 7 is not permissible in the eye of law. After de-reservation of government land measuring Ac.36.100 dec., the O.P. No. 3-Collector, Cuttack sanctioned lease of the said land in favour of IDCO by letter dated 20.06.2011 for establishment of industry and lease deed dated 18.07.2011 came to be executed between the parties by complying the legal formalities. Section 33 of the Orissa Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation Act (OIIDC), 1980 stipulates that after transfer of government land to the Corporation, the Corporation may dispose of the said land in any manner whether by way of sale, mortgage, exchange, or lease etc. Section 15 of the said Act deals with the general powers of the Corporation and sub-clause (a) states that the Corporation shall have power to lease, sell, exchange or otherwise transfer any property held by it on such conditions as may be deemed proper by the Corporation. Our attention was also drawn to the provisions of the Orissa Industries (Facilitation) Act, 2004 (Orissa Act 14 of 2004) in this regard. On the recommendation of the Nodal Agency, IDCO has granted lease of the land in question in favour of O.P. No. 7-Company for establishment of industry. Our attention was also drawn to the provisions of the Orissa Industries (Facilitation) Act, 2004 (Orissa Act 14 of 2004) in this regard. On the recommendation of the Nodal Agency, IDCO has granted lease of the land in question in favour of O.P. No. 7-Company for establishment of industry. The State Pollution Control Board- O.P. No. 5, after considering the inspection report of its scientists, granted consent to O.P. No. 7 to establish the Bulk Terminal of 2.0 MTPA capacity (which is a packaging unit in which cement unloading and storing takes place in RCC Silos and packed in bags) subject to general and special conditions as mentioned therein and copies of the report and the order of consent are also annexed to the counter affidavit of the Board. One of the condition stipulated in it is that "No Grinding shall be done and Cement shall be packed only." Hence the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the IDCO in contravention of the OIIDC Act, 1980 has transferred the land by way of lease in favour of O.P. No. 7, and the establishment of unit will affect the environmental condition lack merit and liable for rejection. In view of the above, there is no merit whatsoever in the writ petition. In the result the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. I. Mahanty, J. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed