IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) Nos.10435 of 2014, 25922 of 2013,
21728 of 2012 and 4005 of 2014
W.P.(C) No.10435 of 2014 ...
Sukra Lakra and others Petitioners
Mr. S. K. Pal, Advocate
-versus-
M/s. Shri Mahavir Ferro Alloys Pvt. ... Opposite Parties
Ltd. and others
Mr. S. N. Das, ASC
W.P.(C) No.25922 of 2013 ...
Rajkishore Dhanwar and others Petitioners
Mr. S. K. Pal, Advocate
-versus-
M/s. Shri Mahavir Ferro Alloys Pvt. ... Opposite Parties
Ltd. and another
Mr. S. N. Das, ASC
W.P.(C) No.21728 of 2012 ...
Jambu Barla and others Petitioners
Mr. U. K. Samal, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others ... Opposite Parties
Mr. Gautam Mukherji, Senior Advocate for OPP. Party No.4
and Mr. S. N. Das, ASC
W.P.(C) No.4005 of 2014 ...
Ranjit Barwa and others Petitioners
Mr. U. K. Samal, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others ... Opposite Parties
Mr. S. N. Das, ASC
CORAM:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
26.08.2021 Order No.
17. Dr. S. Muralidhar, CJ.
1. These four petitions arise in the background of a common set of facts and are accordingly being disposed of by this common order.
2. The first petition i.e. W.P.(C) No.10435 of 2014 filed by 33 residents of village Goibhanga, P.O. Kalunga, P.S./Munsiff Panpos, District Sundargarh with a prayer that Annexure-1 to the petition, which is a notice under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (LA Act) dated 21st November, 2009 should be quashed.
3. In W.P.(C) No.25922 of 2013 filed by 3 residents of village Gadhei Balanda, P.S. Brahmanitarang, District Sndargarh, the prayer is for quashing of a notification dated 22nd November, 2007 under Section 4 (1) of the LA Act on the ground that such acquisition is in violation of Section 3 (iii) of the Orissa Scheduled Areas Transfer of Immovable Property (By Scheduled Tribes) Regulation, 1956 ('the 1956 Regulation').
4. The third W.P.(C) No.21728 of 2012 is by 6 residents of village Goibhanga, P.O. Kalunga, P.S. Bramhanitaranga, District Sundargarh, which again prays for quashing of the notification dated 21st November, 2009 issued under Section 4 (1) of the LA Act.
5. The fourth W.P.(C) No.4005 of 2014 filed by 5 residents of village Goibhanga, P.O. Kalunga, P.S. Bramhanitaranga, District Sundargarh praying for a direction to quash the Lease (Industrial) Case initiated for de-reservation.
6. What is common to all these four petitions is that the land has been acquired by the State Government for the purposes of expansion of the factory of M/s. Shri Mahavir Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd. (which has been impleaded as Opposite Party No.1 in W.P.(C) No.10435 of 2014 and W.P.(C) No.25922 of 2013).
7. In W.P.(C) No.21728 of 2012, it is additionally pointed out that the Tahasildar, Lathikata had initiated Lease (Industrial) Case No.1 of 2012 to dereserve the land acquired in favour of IDCO. In this petition, on 14th January 2013, the Court while directing notice to issue to the Opposite Parties, the further proceedings in the aforementioned Lease (Industrial) Case No.1 of 2012 was stayed. Subsequently, on 27th January 2014, the following order was passed vacating the interim order of stay:
"Heard Mr. Samal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. U.C. Patnaik, learned counsel for the intervener.
Mr. Samal, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present writ application has been filed seeking two fold reliefs, which are reads as follows:
"(c) issue rule Nisi calling upon the opposite parties as to why the notice under annexures-2 & 3 shall not be quashed and the initiation of Lease (Industrial) Case No.1 of 2012 shall not be quashed/dropped;
(d) if the opposite parties do not show cause or shown insufficient cause, issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions in quashing the notice under Annexures-2 & 3 and a further direction be made to the opposite party No.5 to drop the initiation of Lease (Industrial) Case No.1 of 2012."
Mr. Samal further submits that the land acquisition proceeding is covered under the notice (Annexures-2 & 3) whereas the land lease in favour of the intervener in Lease (Industrial) Case No.1 of 2012 appertains to certain Government land.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays to restrict the writ application to the challenge made to the acquisition notice under Annexures-2 & 3 alone and seeks liberty to file a separate application, if required, against the lease granted in Lease (Industrial) Case No.1 of 2012. The prayer in the present writ petition is confined to the land acquisition proceeding.
In view of the above, necessary correction be made in the prayer and liberty as sought for is also granted.
Since the matter relates to land acquisition proceeding, the same be listed before the assigned Bench for consideration.
Interim order dated 14.01.2013 passed in Misc. Case No.18669 of 2012 stands vacated."
8. As far as W.P.(C) No.25922 of 2013 is concerned, notice was issued to the Opposite Parties on 12th March, 2014 and on 2nd August 2016, a status quo order was passed in respect of the land measuring an area of Ac.39 dec. in Mouza-Jaiabahal under Brahmanitaranga Police Station in the district of Sundargarh. In W.P.(C) No.10435 of 2014, notice was issued on 4th August, 2014 and IDCO was impleaded as a party by the subsequent order dated 21st January, 2015. However, no interim order was passed at any stage.
9. There have been important developments in these cases since the filing of the present petitions. There being no stay of the land acquisition proceedings at any time. In fact there could not have been such an interim order since, as will be noticed hereafter, the entire land acquisition proceedings including the passing of the Award was concluded even before the filing of any of these petitions. The fact remains that the challenge to the notifications under Section 4 (1) of the LA Act was raised after the conclusion of the land acquisition proceedings.
10. Following the notification dated 21st November, 2009 under Section 4 (1) of the LA Act, the declaration under Section 6 of the LA Act was issued on 12th August, 2010. The consequential Award was published on 9th January 2012. Only thereafter was W.P.(C) No.21728 of 2012 filed, on 14th November, 2012. W.P.(C) No.25922 of 2013 was filed on 27th November, 2013. W.P.(C) No.4005 of 2014 was filed on 26th February, 2014 and W.P.(C) No.10435 of 2014 was filed on 4th June, 2014. The Court has been informed that the lands in question were handed over to IDCO on 7th July, 2010 itself. The railway siding on the extra land acquired for the factory of Opposite Party No.1 in W.P.(C) No.10435 of 2014 and W.P.(C) No.25922 of 2013 has already come up. In other words, the purposes of the acquisition already stand served.
11. There is no particular reason given for not filing these petitions before the passing of the Award. Nothing is indicated in these petitions to explain the delay. Also the subsequent events, particularly the passing of the Award, do not appear to be accounted for in any of the petitions.
12. Learned counsel for the Petitioners in W.P.(C) No.10435 of 2014 and W.P.(C) No.25922 of 2013 urged that the mandatory procedure of hearing objections under Section 5-A of the LA Act has not been complied with. Reliance is placed in this context on the decisions in Radhy Shyam v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2011) 5 SCC 553 and Devendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2011 (5) Supreme 466.
13. Mr. Samal, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners in the companion petitions urged that the mandatory provisions of the Regulation Act applicable to tribal lands have not been complied with. Reliance is placed on Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2011) 11 SCC 396 to urge that the lands in question are public utility lands and cannot possibly be de-reserved. Secondly, it is pointed out that the proceedings have been initiated by the Tahasildar and not by the Collector and, therefore, there is a violation of Section 3A (1) of the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 (OGLS Act).
14. Mr. Das, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State refutes the last mentioned contention and points out that the initiation of the de-reservation proceedings was indeed by the Collector. He refers to the counter affidavit filed in W.P.(C) No.21728 of 2012. He refers to the fact that not only the Award has been passed but also some of the land owners have already received payments and the challenge has been made long after these steps have been completed.
15. Indeed, the question of belated challenge to the land acquisition proceedings is significant. In Sawaran Lata v. State of Haryana, 2010 (4) SCC 532, the Supreme Court held as under:
"When the person challenges Section 4 notification on any ground, it should be challenged within a reasonable period, and if the acquisition is challenged at a belated stage, the petition deserves to be dismissed only on this count".
It has been further held that ... If the interested person allows the grass to grow under his feet by allowing the acquisition proceedings to go on and reach its terminus in the award and possession is taken in furtherance thereof and vested in the State free from all encumbrances, the slumbering interested person would be told off the gates of the Court that his grievance should not be entertained..."
16. The counter affidavit filed also points out that after issuance of the above notifications under Section 4 (1) of the LA Act, no objections were received under Section 5 (A) of the LA Act.
17. As regards de-reservation proceedings in Lease (Industrial) Case No.1 of 2012, it is pointed out that this was initiated in 2010 but the actual de-reservation orders were passed by the Collector, Sundargarh on 10th April, 2012. After the de-reservation and correction of the ROR, IDCO submitted an application for settlement / alienation of the Government land. To this, objections were invited by an order dated 2nd November, 2012.
18. It is further pointed out that the Petitioners have not given the particulars of the land over which they claim to be in cultivating possession. They have also not produced documents to show ownership of the land. Indeed, the Court finds that the subsequent developments have rendered a challenge raised by these writ Petitioners futile.
19. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of IDCO, it is pointed out that the contention that the Petitioners had developed the forest land and made it for cultivation in terms of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Dwellers (Recognition of the Forest Rights Act), 2006 is a false one since the land has been registered as "Patita Land" in the ROR. IDCO points out that it had already deposited a sum of Rs.3,74,24,663/- with the Land Acquisition Officer, Sundargarh on 7th July, 2010 for payment of compensation.
20. The Court is, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the notifications issued under Section 4 of the LA Act at this stage when all of the above stages of the acquisition processes already stood completed even before the writ petitions came to be filed.
21. The writ petitions are according dismissed, but in the circumstances, with no order as to costs. An urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.
(Dr. S. Muralidhar) (B.P. Routray)
Chief Justice Judge
No comments:
Post a Comment