JUDGMENT : Biswajit Mohanty, J. - The present writ application styled as Public Interest Litigation has been filed by some of the villagers of Bhairpur of Cuttack district challenging the order of the authorities under Annexures-3 and 4, whereby the lands classified as Gochar in village Bhairpur in Khata No. 657 (Rakhit) corresponding to Plot No. 752 (part) measuring upto Ac.0.072 decimals have been de-reserved. According to them, such de-reservation of Gochar land is bad in law as the same violates the provisions of the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 (for short the "Act") and the Orissa Government Land Settlement Rules, 1983 (for short the "Rules"). Briefly the case of the petitioners is that opposite party No. 5 approached the authorities for settlement of land in village Bhairpur in Khata No. 657 (Rakhit) corresponding to Plot No. 752 (part) measuring upto Ac.0.072 decimals for using the same as passage to their retail outlet. On receipt of such application under Annexure-1, opposite party No. 4 directed for issuance of general proclamation inviting objections. As no objections were received within the statutory period of 30 days, the opposite party No. 4 recommended for settlement of the above land in favour of the opposite party No. 5. While doing so, opposite party No. 4 relied on his field verification report. In the field verification report it was indicated that the land had lost its Gochar character. On receipt of the recommendation of opposite party No. 4, opposite party No. 3 vide order dated 11.10.2010 under Annexure-3 sanctioned de-reservation of Gochar land for the purpose of utilizing the land as passage to the retail outlet proposed to be constructed in village Bhairpur. Pursuant to such order of opposite party No. 3, sanction order under Annexure-4 was issued. According to the petitioners, villagers of Bhairpur had no knowledge about such proceedings. It is only when opposite party No. 5 started filling sand in the de-reserved land, the petitioners came to know about the de-reservation and immediately they approached all the official opposite parties by way of representations dated 12.8.2012 and when nothing was done they filed this writ application challenging orders under Annexures-3 & 4 on the ground that there had been violation of Section-3 of the Act and various provisions of the Rules. According to them, the entire process of de-reservation has been vitiated as no notices were issued prior to such de-reservation. According to them, the entire process of de-reservation has been vitiated as no notices were issued prior to such de-reservation. 2. Learned counsel for opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 filed one counter affidavit dated 20.2.2013 and an affidavit dated 30.4.2014. In the said counter affidavit and later affidavit, they have made it clear that the order under Annexures-2, 3 and 4 have been passed in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act and Rules and hence no illegality has been committed by opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 in de-reserving plot No. 752 (part) measuring an area Ac.0.072 decimals under Khata No. 657 belonging to village Bhairpur. Learned Addl. Government Advocate also produced the relevant case record in order to support the contention made by opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 in their counter affidavit and affidavit dated 30.4.2014. 3. A separate counter affidavit has been filed by opposite party No. 5. In that counter affidavit opposite party No. 5 has stated that as per spot verification report of opposite party No. 4 the land in question has completely lost its gochar character and the said land is not serving its purpose of grazing. On the other hand lot of Gochar land is available very near to the land in question for grazing purpose. Further, the stand of opposite party No. 5 is that one of the Banks, namely, Central Bank of India is also using the adjacent Gochar land as a passage since 1985. In this context, opposite party No. 5 also pointed out that the opposite party No. 4 after necessary verification, published proclamation as required under law inviting objection with regard to de-reservation of the land in question but none had objected to the same. This being the position, it is not permissible on the part of the petitioners to say now that they were not noticed prior to passing of the order of de-reservation. Opposite party No. 6 has not filed any separate counter affidavit but adopted the stand taken by opposite party Nos. 3, 4 and 5. No rejoinder has been filed by the petitioners to the counter affidavit filed by opposite party Nos. 3, 4 and 5. 4. Heard Mr. B.P. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. B.P. Pradhan, learned Additional Government Advocate, Mr. Debraj Mohanty, learned counsel for opposite party No. 5 and Mr. 3, 4 and 5. No rejoinder has been filed by the petitioners to the counter affidavit filed by opposite party Nos. 3, 4 and 5. 4. Heard Mr. B.P. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. B.P. Pradhan, learned Additional Government Advocate, Mr. Debraj Mohanty, learned counsel for opposite party No. 5 and Mr. B.S. Tripathy, learned counsel for opposite party No. 6 respectively. 5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that in the instant case the land has been de-reserved for the purpose of providing road to retail outlet of opposite party No. 5 and such purpose is not covered under the provisions of Section-3 of the Act. Therefore, any such de-reservation contravenes the statute. Secondly, he submitted that as no public notices were issued prior to passing of order of de-reservation, the entire process of de-reservation is vitiated. Thirdly, he submitted that in the village Bhairpur there existed no surplus Gochar land. According to him as per Rule-4(2)(i) 5% of the effective area of the village should be set apart for pasturage (Gochar) subject to availability of suitable Government land and in the present case the authorities have made a wrong calculation with regard to quantum of surplus Gochar land available. According to him, those calculation has been done in violation of the provisions of law as contained in Rule-2(1)(c) and Rule-4(2)(i) of the Rules. In this view of the matter, the orders under Annexures-2, 3 and 4 are liable to be set aside. Lastly, he submitted that in any case as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in State of Jharkhand and Others Vs. Pakur Jagran Manch and Others, de-reservation of any Government land reserved as Gochar, should only be done in exceptional circumstances and for valid reasons, having regard to the importance of Gochar in every village. Any attempt by either the villagers or others to encroach upon or illegally convert the Gochar to house plots or other non-grazing use should be resisted and firmly dealt with. Any requirement of land for any public purpose should be met from available waste or unutilized land in the village and not Gochar. According to Sri Das here exists no exceptional circumstances and no valid reason for de-reservation. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 took the following common stand. Any requirement of land for any public purpose should be met from available waste or unutilized land in the village and not Gochar. According to Sri Das here exists no exceptional circumstances and no valid reason for de-reservation. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 took the following common stand. According to them, proviso to Section-3(1) of the Act makes it clear that once Gochar land is de-reserved in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules, the same can be used for house sites/commercial purpose/industrial purpose or for any other purpose whatsoever. According to them their case is clearly covered under Clause "for any other purpose whatsoever". Secondly, they submitted that despite issuance of general proclamation inviting objections, the petitioners never filed any objections. In such background, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that no notices were issued prior to de-reservation has no legs to stand. Relying on case record, Mr. Pradhan, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that proclamation inviting objection was published by beat of drum in the village in which land was situated in presence of more than two persons of the locality. Copy of the proclamation was affixed in the Notice Board and a copy of the same was served on Sarpanch of concerned Gram Panchayat. Despite this, none filed objection. Thirdly, they submitted that a combined reading of Section-3A of the Act and Rules-2(1)(c) and 4 in the background of Annexures-2 & 3 filed by the petitioners themselves would show that surplus Gochar land was/is available in village Bhairpur. Accordingly, there has been no infraction of law in passing the orders under Annexures-2, 3 and 4. Lastly, they contended that the decision reported in State of Jharkhand and Others Vs. Pakur Jagran Manch and Others, is factually distinguishable rather their case is covered by a decision of this Court rendered on 20.8.2013 in the case of Jitendra Rout and another v. State of Odisha and others in W.P. (C) No. 9415 of 2012. 6. Before we take up the above contention of the parties, let us refer and analyze some of the relevant provisions of the Act and Rules relevant for our purpose. 6. Before we take up the above contention of the parties, let us refer and analyze some of the relevant provisions of the Act and Rules relevant for our purpose. "Section-2.(b) Government land means any waste land belonging to Government, whether cultivable or not, recorded as House-site, Anabadi, Chot Jungle, Puratan Patit, Nutan Patit, Parityakta Bedakhali, Gochar or by any other description, whatsoever; Section-3.(1). Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any law or any custom, practice or usage having the force of law, Government shall not be deemed to be debarred from exercising all or any of the following powers in respect of Government lands, namely:- (a) to reserve such portion of the lands as they deem proper for the purpose of being used as house-sites or for any communal or industrial purpose or for any other purpose whatsoever; (b) to charge premium for settlement of any such land; (c) to charge rent for the lands so settled; (d) to charge fees on applications for settlement of lands and such other fees as may be necessary for or incidental to the disposal of such application at such rates as may be prescribed and all such fees shall be payable in the prescribed manner; and. (e) to authorise any office of Government not below the rank of a Tahasildar to dispose of applications for settlement of lands and settle the same in such manner as may be prescribed and subject to the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3): Provided that no Government land recorded as Gochar shall be reserved for any purpose mentioned in Clause (a) or settled under Clause (e) without being dereserved in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 3A. Section-3A. Power to de-reserve land - (1) The Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, authorise any officer, not below the rank of a Collector, to de-reserve any land which has been reserved under clause (a) of Section 3 or any Government land recorded as Gochar or any portion thereof. Section-3A. Power to de-reserve land - (1) The Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, authorise any officer, not below the rank of a Collector, to de-reserve any land which has been reserved under clause (a) of Section 3 or any Government land recorded as Gochar or any portion thereof. (2) Any officer authorised under sub-section (1) shall subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, have power to de-reserve any land referred to in that sub-section or any portion thereof, if such Officer is satisfied that such land or portion thereof, as the case may be,- (a) is no longer required for the purpose for which it was reserved; or (b) can no longer serve the purpose for which it was reserved; or (c) is in excess of the reasonable requirement for the purpose for which it was reserved; Provided that the officer so authorized shall in assessing the reasonable requirement for the purpose of gochar follow the prescribed principles laying down the extent of gochar land to be set apart for use by the community. Rule-2.(1)(c) "Effective area of a village" means the total extent of private agricultural land plus arable Government lands consisting of Gochar, village forests and waste land in the village, multiplied by 20/23. Note-For the purpose of calculating arable Government land under this clause, the following categories of lands shall be excluded namely: (i) lands known as 'char' and 'diara'; (ii) lands subject to the custom of Utabandi Settlement; (iii) Canal side, road side and other lands considered temporarily surplus by the Works Department and Irrigation and Power Department which are placed at disposal of the Revenue Department for temporary settlement; (iv) surplus railway lands placed by the Ministry of Railways at the disposal of the Revenue Department for being utilized for the purpose of agriculture; and (v) lands recorded or used for communal purposes. Rule 4.(1) Any land which has been reserved under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 or recorded as Gochar may be de-reserved by any officer not below the rank of Collector authorized by the State Government in that behalf. Rule 4.(1) Any land which has been reserved under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 or recorded as Gochar may be de-reserved by any officer not below the rank of Collector authorized by the State Government in that behalf. In making such de-reservation the following procedure shall be followed, namely; (i) A notice inviting objection to the proposal for de-reservation specifying particulars of the area to be de-reserved and its situation such as village, Gram Panchayat and town, khata or holding and plot number and extent shall be published in the manner prescribed in Sub-rule (5) of Rule 5. A period of thirty days shall be allowed for filing objections, if any, before the concerned Tahasildar. If during the said period no objection is received, the Tahasildar shall submit his proposal for de-reservation giving justification for the same. (ii) xxx xxx xxx (2) While de-reserving any Government land recorded as Gochar the authorized Officer shall assess the reasonable requirement for the purpose of Gochar for use by the community in the following manner: (i) in every surveyed village which is not included within the limits of an urban area, five per cent of the effective area of the village shall be set apart for pasturage (Gochar) subject to availability of suitable Government land; (ii) in every surveyed village, land for pasturage shall be set apart at the rate of one acre for every fourteen inhabitants of the village, and if the village is non-inhabited; reservation for pasturage, shall be made at the rate of one acre for every three persons having land in the village, subject to availability of suitable Government land; Provided that the above provision shall not apply to Gochar situated in an urban area. Rule-5. Manner of settlement of Government land (1) xxx xxx xxx (2) xxx xxx xxx (3) xxx xxx xxx (4) xxx xxx xxx (5) The proclamation shall be published by beat of drum and by affixing a copy of the same at a conspicuous place in the village or urban area in which the land is situated in the presence of not less than two person of the locality. If the village is un-inhabited, the notice shall be published in the nearest inhabited village. If the village is un-inhabited, the notice shall be published in the nearest inhabited village. A copy of the proclamation shall be published by affixing in the Notice Board of the Tahasil office and a copy shall be sent to the Gram Panchayat or Notified Area, Council or Municipality, as the case may be, urban which the land is situated. (6) xxx xxx xxx (7) xxx xxx xxx Section-2(b) of the Act makes it clear that Gochar is a type of Government land. As per proviso to Section-3(1)(a) of the Act no Government land recorded as Gochar shall be reserved for any purpose mentioned in Clause (a) or settled under Clause (e) without being de-reserved in accordance with the provisions contained in Section-3A of the Act. This clearly means that once Gochar land is de-reserved in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the same can be reserved/used for house sites/commercial purpose/industrial purpose or for any other purpose whatsoever by the Government as envisaged u/s 3(1)(a) of the Act. As per Section-3A of the Act, the Collector has got power to de-reserve any land which has been reserved under Clause (a) of Section-3 or any Government land recorded as Gochar. Sub-section-(2) of Section-3A makes it clear that any authorized officer like Collector has got power to de-reserve any land referred to in Sub-section-(1) of Section-3A or any portion thereof if he is satisfied that such land or portion of the land, as the case may be, is no longer required for the purpose for which it was reserved or when such land or portion of land no longer serves the purpose for which it was reserved or where such land or portion of such land is in excess of the reasonable requirement for the purpose for which it was reserved. Proviso to Sub-section-2 of Section 3A makes it clear that the Authorised Officer shall in assessing the reasonable requirement for the purpose of Gochar is to follow the prescribed principles laying down the extent of Gochar land to be set apart for use by the community. The prescribed de-reservation principles are contained in Rule-4 of the Rules. Proviso to Sub-section-2 of Section 3A makes it clear that the Authorised Officer shall in assessing the reasonable requirement for the purpose of Gochar is to follow the prescribed principles laying down the extent of Gochar land to be set apart for use by the community. The prescribed de-reservation principles are contained in Rule-4 of the Rules. Rule-4(1)(i) makes it clear that any officer not below the rank of Collector, authorized by the State Government can deserve any land reserved under Clause-(a) of Sub-section-(1) of Section-3 of the Act or lands recorded as Gochar by taking recourse to the following procedures. A notice inviting objection to the proposal for de-reservation specifying particulars of the area to be de-reserved and its situation such as village, Grama Panchayat and town, khata or holding and plot number and extent has to be published in the prescribed manner. A period of thirty days shall be allowed for filing objections, if any, before the concerned Tahasildar. If during the said period no objection is received, the Tahasildar would submit his proposal for de-reservation giving justification for the same. Sub-Rule-2 of Rule-4 lays down that while de-reserving any Government land recorded as Gochar, the authorized officer shall assess the reasonable requirement for the purpose of Gochar for use by the community in the following manner. For every surveyed village, which is not included within the limits of an urban area, five percent of the "effective area of the village" shall be set apart for pasturage (Gochar) subject to availability of suitable Government land. Rule-2(1)(c) indicates that "effective area of a village" means the total extent of private agricultural land plus arable Government lands consisting of Gochar, village, forests and waste land in the village multiplied by 20/23. The note attached to Rule-2(1)(c) provides for exclusion of categories of land indicated therein while calculating quantum of arable Government land under Rule-2(1)(c) of the Rules. All these make it clear that authorized officer, following prescribed procedure under Rules-4 & 5 read with Rule-2(1)(c) can de-reserve lands recorded as Gochar land if such lands are no longer required for Gochar purpose/if such lands can no longer serve the Gochar purpose/if such land are in excess of reasonable requirement for Gochar purpose. Once de-reserved, Government can use such Gochar land for house site/communal purpose/industrial purpose/for any other purpose. 7. Once de-reserved, Government can use such Gochar land for house site/communal purpose/industrial purpose/for any other purpose. 7. Once an application for de-reservation is there, the authorities are to apply their mind as to whether fact situation satisfies requirements of either Clause-(a) or Clause-(b) or Clause-(c) of Sub-Section-2 to Section-3A of the Act. In the instant case, a perusal of records shows that as per field enquiry report dated 11.1.2010, the opposite party No. 4 was satisfied that the land in question had completely lost its Gochar character. According to the report, the land was/is a shallow land and gets waterlogged during rainy season. There are pucca structures on its both sides. Because of its existence very near to Pira Bazar Market area it has completely lost its Gochar character and it can safely be used as passage. Secondly, a perusal of Annexure-3 would show that the opposite party No. 3 has relied on a calculation sheet to arrive at reasonable requirement of Gochar land. Learned Addl. Government Advocate has produced the relevant case record for perusal of this Court. The calculation sheet dated 30.6.2010 reveals that the total area of land is around Ac.445.342 decimals. The effective area of the village would be Ac.445.342 decimals x 20/23 and as per Rule-4(2)(i), 5% of the effective area of the village should be set apart for pasturage (Gochar). Therefore, the Gochar land required for village Bhairpur would be Ac.445.342 decimals x 20/23 x 5%. Thus, the R.I. arrived at Ac.19.362 decimals as the land required as Gochar land. In other words, this quantum of land is required under the law to be set apart for Gochar land under Rule-4(2)(i) for the village. However, as per calculation sheet, the total extent of Gochar land available in the village is around Ac.20.780 decimals. Thus, there is a surplus of Ac.1.418 decimals of Gochar land. All these have been clearly explained in affidavit dated 30.4.2014 filed by opposite party No. 4. In such background, now let us consider the rival contention of the parties as indicated above. Learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that in the instant case land has been de-reserved for the purpose of providing a road to the retail outlet and the said purpose is not covered under Section-3 of the Act. In such background, now let us consider the rival contention of the parties as indicated above. Learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that in the instant case land has been de-reserved for the purpose of providing a road to the retail outlet and the said purpose is not covered under Section-3 of the Act. This contention is without merit as we have noted earlier that once Gochar land is de-reserved following the procedure of law, the Government can reserve/use the same for any other purpose whatsoever besides using the same as house site or for commercial/industrial purpose. So no fault can be found if the authorities have allowed use of deserved Gochar land as passage to retail outlet. So far as second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that no notice was issued inviting objection prior to de-reservation this Court finds that the same is factually not correct. In fact, as it appears from the case record on 24.1.2010, the opposite party No. 4 had issued proclamation inviting objections. The said proclamation was published by beat of drum in the village in presence of near about 10 persons of the locality. Copy of the said proclamation was also published in the notice board of opposite party No. 4 and handed over to Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. Despite this, petitioners never filed by objection within 30 days. Therefore, in such background, the grievance of the petitioners that no notice was issued prior to passing of de-reservation order is without any merit. The third contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners relate to wrong calculation made by the authorities under the Rule with regard to the extent of Gochar land required for the village. The calculation sheet dated 30.6.2010 of R.I. filed along with L.C.R. and also the affidavit dated 30.4.2014 filed by opposite party No. 4 clearly show that the calculation arrived at with regard to quantum of land which should be earmarked for Gochar is correct. It clearly shows that the total available land as per law is Ac.445.342 decimals and as per Rule-2(i)(c) read with Rule-4(2)(i) the area of village which is required to be set apart for pasturage Gochar would be total land x 20/23 x 5%. When total land is taken at Ac.445.342 decimals, the Gochar land required for village is Ac.19.362 decimals. It clearly shows that the total available land as per law is Ac.445.342 decimals and as per Rule-2(i)(c) read with Rule-4(2)(i) the area of village which is required to be set apart for pasturage Gochar would be total land x 20/23 x 5%. When total land is taken at Ac.445.342 decimals, the Gochar land required for village is Ac.19.362 decimals. Since the available Gochar area in the village is Ac.20.780 decimals under Annexure-3, the opposite party No. 3 has rightly arrived at the conclusion that there has been surplus Gochar land to an extent of Ac.1.418 decimals. Coupled with this, since opposite party No. 4 has given a clear finding that the land has lost its Gochar character, we find no wrong has been committed by issuance of orders under Annexures-3 and 4 de-reserving the said land for the purpose of using the same as a passage to the retail outlet. Here there exists enough justification for de-reservation. Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that de-reservation of any Government land reserved as Gochar, should only be done in exceptional circumstances and any attempt by either the villagers or others to encroach upon or illegally convert the Gochar to house plots or other non-grazing use should be resisted and firmly dealt with, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in State of Jharkhand and Others Vs. Pakur Jagran Manch and Others, To such contention we can only say that the above noted case is factually distinguishable. Unlike the above noted case, here both Act and Rules make detailed provisions for carrying out process of de-reservation and here the de-reservation has been done as per the provisions of the Act and Rules. So one cannot say any illegality has been committed in the process. Secondly in the present case there exists surplus Gochar land. The quantum of such surplus Gochar land is around Ac.1.418 decimals. Out of this only Ac.0.072 decimal has been de-reserved. Thirdly further here the land in question has completely lost its Gochar character. Fourthly, here law permits for reserving or use of Gochar land for house sites, commercial use/industrial use and for any purpose whatsoever by the Government, once it is de-reserved. Therefore, the facts of this case are clearly distinguishable. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Haryana Financial Corporation and Another Vs. Fourthly, here law permits for reserving or use of Gochar land for house sites, commercial use/industrial use and for any purpose whatsoever by the Government, once it is de-reserved. Therefore, the facts of this case are clearly distinguishable. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Haryana Financial Corporation and Another Vs. Jagdamba Oil Mills and Another, it is well settled that the Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. Observations of Courts are not to be read as Euclid's theorem nor as provisions of the statute. These observations must be read in the context in which they appear. Judgments of Courts are not to be construed as statutes. To interpret words, phrase and provisions of a statute, it may become necessary for judges to embark into lengthy discussions but the discussion is meant to explain and not to define. Judges interpret statutes, they do not interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes, their words are not to be interpreted as statutes. Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases. Each case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough because even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect. Thus, the case of State of Jharkhand and Others Vs. Pakur Jagran Manch and Others, has no application to the present case. Here the Act and Rule nowhere required that Gochar land can be de-reserved only in exception circumstances. Here separate parameters are there for de-reserving Gochar land. In the instant case, not only the Gochar land is in excess of reasonable requirement but also the same has lost its Gochar character. Thus, the requirement of Clause-(b) & (c) of Sub-Section-(2) of Section-3A of the Act have been satisfied. In such background, authorities have committed no illegality in passing the orders under Annexures-3 and 4. Rather, the judgment of this Court cited by learned counsel for the opposite parties i.e. Jitendra Kumar Rout and others v. State of Orissa and others applies with some force to the present case. In such background, authorities have committed no illegality in passing the orders under Annexures-3 and 4. Rather, the judgment of this Court cited by learned counsel for the opposite parties i.e. Jitendra Kumar Rout and others v. State of Orissa and others applies with some force to the present case. It has been made clear there that when de-reservation is made by following due procedure contemplated under the Act and Rules, the same should not be interfered with. Here, we are satisfied that the order of de-reservation was passed legally following due procedure. For all these reasons, the writ petition is without any merit and the same is dismissed. No costs. Final Result : Dismissed