Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1033 (ORI)

Sri Ram Das v. State of Orissa

2016-11-03

SANJU PANDA, SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

body2016
JUDGMENT : S.N. Prasad, J. In this writ petition, the following prayer has been made: “Under aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is humbly and most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a Rule Nisi, thereby calling upon the Opposite Parties to show cause as to why: (i) A writ or writs in the nature of a writ of mandamus shall not be issued, thereby declaring that the acquisition of the petitioner’s land for M/s TISCO Limited is bad and illegal; (ii) A writ or writs in the nature of a writ of Certiorari shall not be issued, thereby quashing the issuance of processes under various impugned notifications of Land Acquisition Act, under Annexures 2, 4, 5, and 6 vis-a-vis the petitioner declaring the same as illegal and bad in the eye of law; (iii) A writ or writs in the nature of a ; writ of Certiorari shall not be issued, thereby setting aside the MOU dated 28.8.1995, under Annexure-3 entered into between the Government and M/s TISCO Limited; declaring the same as bad and illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act,1894; in so far as it concerns petitioner’s lands; xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx” 2. Grievance of the petitioner is that he is the owner of the land under Khata No.733/700 and Plot No.1400/3483/3771/4125 measuring an area of Ac.0.400 dec., situated at Chemakhandi, which has been purchased from Smt. Binodini Rath vide Registered Sale Deed No.1474 of 2010, dated 19.4.2010 and another plot of land under Khata No.733/699 Plot No.1400/3483/3771/4124 which has been purchased from Smt. Pramodini Depak vide Registered Sale Deed No.1475 of 2010 dated 19.4.2010. The petitioner all of a sudden found that his land has been sought to be acquired for setting up a steel plant by Tata Iron & Steel Company Limited (TISCO) as per the Memorandum of Understanding signed in between Government of Orissa and TISCO on 28.8.1995 wherein the Government had agreed to provide 5000 acres of land for the Steel Plant further 1000 acres of land for the township for work place. According to the petitioner authorities have issued notification under section 4(1) relating to Mouza-Chemakhandi under Chatrapur Tahasil, District Ganjam of area Ac.52.837 decimal. This 4(1) notification was never been published in any of the newspaper as per the information obtained. According to the petitioner authorities have issued notification under section 4(1) relating to Mouza-Chemakhandi under Chatrapur Tahasil, District Ganjam of area Ac.52.837 decimal. This 4(1) notification was never been published in any of the newspaper as per the information obtained. Further case of the petitioner is that notification under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 relating to mouza in question was issued thereby withdrawing an area of Ac.1.335 dec. from the previous area of Ac.52.837. It has been stated that notification under section 6(1) was published after one year which is not permissible in the eye of law. Further point urged that the notification issued under section 4(1) relating to land to be acquired for installation of steel plant by the TISCO and as such it is for the purpose of the company, hence it will not come under Part-II and Part-III of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 rather it will come under Part-VII which relates to acquisition of land for companies, wherein altogether different procedure has been provided for acquisition of land and same has not been followed, hence the entire acquisition is bad in the eye of law. 3. Opposite party-State has filed counter affidavit stating, inter alia, therein that the notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was initiated on 19.7.2007 while declaration under section 6(1) was published on 12.8.2008 which is within period of one year and as such there is no illegality. It has been stated that the land in question has been acquired by the Industrial Development Corporation of Orissa Limited (IDCO) and carried out its project and for the development of the State the IDCO has given land in favour of the TISCO for setting up steel plant on lease and as such since the land has been acquired by the State Government and handed over to IDCO, the land has not been acquired directly for the company rather it has been acquired by the State Government for IDCO which is statutory creation of the State for Orissa for establishment and development of the State and allotted in favour of TISCO, hence provision of Part-II and Part-III of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 will be applicable under the provision of Part-VII. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 5. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 5. Sole question raised by the petitioner that notification issued under sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 is not within the stipulated period but we, on examination of the factual aspects, found that the notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 10.9.2007 and declaration under section 6(1) has been issued on 12.8.2008 which is within the period of one year and as such there is no force in the argument advance on behalf of the petitioner. Accordingly, the same is rejected. 6. So far as second ground that the land has been acquired for the purpose of the company, hence part-VII will be applicable not Part-II and Part-III, in order to appreciate this, we have examined the provision of the Land Acquisition Act under Part-II and Part-VII which relates to acquisition of land for public purpose by the appropriate government and the procedure has been laid down in Part-II and Part-III of the Land Acquisition Act,1894. Part-VII deals with acquisition of land for the companies, from going through the provisions as contained in Part-III it is evident that where land is being acquired by the appropriate Government directly for the company, then the acquisition will be said to be come under the purview of the provisions as contained in Part-VII. In the State of Orissa, as per the Industrial Policy Resolution 2007 under clause 9.3 one enterprise known as Industrial Development Corporation of Orissa, has been established with the object to promote industrialization as well as for providing industrial infrastructure project. IDCO has been created to see overall development of the Orissa to install plant for public purpose and as such the State government being appropriate Government by following the statutory provision used to acquire land and given it to IDCO for its onward transmission to the companies for its development on lease. As such, it cannot be said that the State Government has acquired land in favour of TISCO. As such, it cannot be said that the State Government has acquired land in favour of TISCO. It further transpires from the record that the Government have not acquired the land directedly for the company rather the land has been vested upon the IDCO and the IDCO has given the land in favour of the TISCO solely for the purpose of establishment of plant on lease and as such it can always be said that if plant will be established there will be overall development of State and thereby there would be economic advancement of the State, hence the IDCO, after taking into consideration the purpose for it has been constituted, has transferred the land on lease in favour of the TISCO for establishment of factory. On the basis of the facts stated herein above and by going through the pleadings in the counter affidavit, there is no question of applicability of Part-VII of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Accordingly, we find that this argument has also got no force, hence we decline to interfere with the land acquisition proceeding which is the subject matter of the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.