Important points
1. There does not exist any legal concept which confers a legal right upon an encroacher to be rehabilitated by State action.
2. Even an executive action on the part of the State must give way to the statutory scheme.

Headnote:Orissa Municipal Corporation Act, 2003—Eviction of Gowalas, doing business in milk, from government lands without offering them alternative plots—Writ petitions—A policy decision had been taken that for hygienic and other reasons, it was not possible to rehabilitate them in the villages which come within the purview of planned area of Bhubaneswar—Appellants submitted that they are not averse in moving out of town of Bhubaneswar but they should be provided with alternative accommodation in terms of rehabilitation scheme—Orissa State Cooperative Milk Producers’ Federation Limited had come into being—It is also in a position to satisfy need of milk to residents of town of Bhubaneswar—Whether State would be entitled to proceed to evict appellants in accordance with law—(Yes)—Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel will have no application.
       Held : The Master Plan of Bhubaneswar prepared as far back in 1982 is in force. Within its ambit not only the town of Bhubaneswar, but several other villages come. In civic society, Town planning indisputably plays an important role. Unauthorised occupation by the encroachers in the areas which are meant for planned development goes a long way in thwarting the goals sought to be achieved by such town planning. (Para 16)
       It is neither in doubt nor in dispute that it was the Chief Minister himself who thought of rehabilitating the members of the Appellant No.1 Association in the year 1994-95. Rightly or wrongly, the same has not been given effect to. The State, furthermore, proceeded on a mistaken notion that the villages named therein are outside the Master Plan and that the rehabilitation programme could be carried out in the said villages. The said villages, apart from being subjected to encroachments and other litigations being within the Master Plan of Bhubaneswar, no rehabilitation programme could be carried out. No policy decision has been brought to our notice as such which could give rise to a legal right in the Appellants. No notification in terms of Article 162 of the Constitution of India had been issued. The assurance on behalf of the Government came from the notesheet approved by the Chief Minister and on the basis whereof the State took a stand in its affidavit before the High Court. Evidently, the matter has been considered afresh and the same had been brought to the notice of the Chief Minister. He having agreed thereto, must be held to have expressly resiled from the earlier promise, if any. Furthermore, even an executive action on the part of the State must give way to the statutory scheme. As by reason of the Orissa Municipal Corporation Act, within the periphery of the town, dairies or cowsheds cannot be maintained, the State would not be entitled to adhere to its earlier plan of rehabilitating them in the villages mentioned therein. (Paras 22 and 23)
       The matter may be different where the State comes out with a policy decision which meets the constitutional scheme as envisaged under Article 162 of the Constitution of India. In the instant case, we have noticed that the Appellants have failed to show the existence of any such scheme, which can be said to be irretrievable in nature. In view of the 2003 Act, even the doctrine of Promissory Estoppel will have no application. (Para 24)

Judgment

S.B. Sinha, J.—Leave granted in all the SLPs.

2. The Appellants herein carry on business in milk. They have admittedly encroached upon government lands in the town of Bhubaneswar. The State of Orissa intended to evict them. The Chief Minister of the State of Orissa evolved a scheme allegedly for their rehabilitation. The villages selected for carrying out such rehabilitation job were not found to be suitable therefor. As they are sought to be evicted without offering them alternative plots, the Appellants filed writ petitions before the Orissa High Court. In the writ petitions it was inter alia averred :

“4. That since most of these Petitioners belong to the poorer strata of the society, their rehabilitation have engaged attention of the authorities at the highest level since the year 1987. In a meeting held on 1.6.87 under the Chairman ship of the Chief Secretary, it was decided that sites for such rehabilitation of Gowalas operating within Bhubaneswar city shall be selected by a committee consisting of Director of Veterinary Services; representatives of OMFED; A.D.M., Bhubaneswar; S.D.O., Bhubaneswar and representative of Bhubaneswar Development Authority. The minutes of the meeting held on 1.6.87 was sent to Chief Secretary, Secretary, Finance Department, Special Secretary, General Administration Department, Secretary, Forest and Animal Husbandary Department, Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, Vice-Chairman, Bhubaneswar Development Authority etc.; vide letter No. 9838/CA, dated 14.7.87 by the Joint Secretary to Government in the Department of General Administration, Govt. of Orissa and Ex-officio Director of Estates.

5. That as per the decision of the High Power Committee, the site selection committee met on 11.6.87 and recommended that the milkmen/private milk producers like Petitioners No. 2 to 240 be settled at Pratap Sasan, Tulsadeipur and Jamukoli.

6. That during 1989, the Government gave press statements to the effect that the Government had formulated scheme of rehabilitation, which is as follows :

(a) Allotment of Govt. land measuring 40 x 30 free of premium.

(b) Payment of disturbance allowance of Rs. 500/-.

(c) Payment of construction assistance of Rs. 3,000/- in two instalments for construction of dwelling house at the new site.

(d) Free Transportation of personal belonging of each Gowalla family.

(e) Provision of drinking water at the new site.

(f) Opening of fair price shop at the new site for sale of essential commodities.

(g) Opening of a fodder sale centre.

(h) Collection of milk by OMFED form the Goallas who want to sell milk to it at the new site.

(i) Medical and Educational facilities at the new site.....

7. That despite all these exercise nothing has been done in the matter. Later on the Petitioners understand that vide letter No. Misc-BP-126/93 2240/BP/BDA Bhubaneswar, 7.4.94, the Advisor-cum-Planning Member wrote to Director of Estates that the site at Pandara seems to be the best suited for the purpose of rehabilitation because of the availability of water near by and open spaces for cattle movement. In return the Director of Estates vide letter dated 3.9.94 intimated to Vice-Chairman, Bhubaneswar Development Authority that Government have already decided to rehabilitate the Gowallas in Mouza Pandara, Gakana, Patrapada, and Jokalandi. The Director of Estates requested the Bhubaneswar Development Authority to carve out plots in the above area for the purpose of rehabilitation of Gowalas. Thus, though the Government unilaterally changed the sites selected for rehabilitation, the Petitioners welcomed such action of the Government......

8. That pursuant to request under Annexure-2, the Advisor cum Planning member of Bhubaneswar Development Authority vide letter No. 5615/B/BDA/Misc-BP-176/93 Bhubaneswar, the 5.10.94 intimated the Director of Estates that as desired the layout plans of the concerned land in mouza Gadakana, Pandara, Patrapada and Joklandi have been p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(SC) 95

Important points1. There does not exist any legal concept which confers a legal right upon an encroacher to be rehabilitated by State action.2. Even an executive action on the part of the State must give way to the statutory scheme.

Cases Referred (3)

Important points
1. There does not exist any legal concept which confers a legal right upon an encroacher to be rehabilitated by State action.
2. Even an executive action on the part of the State must give way to the statutory scheme.