Back
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
V.GOPALA GOWDA, B.N.MAHAPATRA, JJ.
Rajkumar Gunawant, Son of Mathura Dutt Gunawant, Village: Barbil (Punjabi para) PO: Barbil, Dist: Keonjhar and another … Petitioners
Versus
State of Orissa and others… Opp. Parties
W.P.(C) No.10542 of 2009
Decided on : 27.03.2012
Land Acquisition Act - Acquisition of Land for Industrial Development - Section 4(1), Section 17(4), Section 6(1) - The court quashed the notifications issued under Section 4(1) and Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for acquiring land for industrial development, finding that the acquisition was illegal and not in the public interest.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the acquisition of their land for industrial development by a private company, alleging that the notifications issued under the Land Acquisition Act were a colorable exercise of power by the State Government. They argued that the acquisition was not urgent and did not consider the requirements before taking possession, such as declaration, general notice, and demarcation, as required by the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the acquisition was illegal and not in the public interest, as it was solely for the benefit of a private company and did not follow the mandatory procedures laid down in the Land Acquisition Act. The court also noted that there was no urgency for the acquisition, as evidenced by the long delay between the notifications.
Issues: The issues before the court included whether the acquisition was legal and in the public interest, whether the State Government could acquire the land for a private company, and whether there was any urgency for the acquisition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the acquisition was illegal and not in the public interest, as it was solely for the benefit of a private company and did not follow the mandatory procedures laid down in the Land Acquisition Act. The court also found that there was no urgency for the acquisition, as evidenced by the long delay between the notifications.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the notifications issued under the Land Acquisition Act, and directed the exclusion of the petitioners' land covered under the notifications.
JUDGMENT
B.N. Mahapatra, J.
This writ petition has been filed with a prayer for quashing Notification dated 05.02.2008 (Annexure-4/1) issued by opposite party no.3-Additional District Collector, Keonjhar under Section 4(1) read with Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the L.A. Act”) for acquiring Ac.18.999 decimals of land belonging to various persons in village Matkembeda and Notification dated 26.02.2009 (Annexure-5) issued by the Joint Secretary (Administration) under Section 6(1) of the L.A. Act. The petitioners further pray to direct opposite party No.2-Collector & District Magistrate, Keonjhar and opposite party No.4-Special Land Acquisition Officer, Keonjhar to allow the application dated 30.03.2009 (Annexure-6) and direct opposite parties to exclude the petitioner’s land covered under Notification issued under Annexure-5 or in the alternative to dispose of the application of the petitioners under Annexure-6 within a stipulated period.
2. Petitioners’ case in a nutshell is that on 24.11.2006, opposite party no.7-M/s Aryan Iron and Steel Co. Pvt. Ltd. (for short, ‘Comlpany’) made an application to opposite party No.6-Industrial Promotion & Investment Corporation of Orissa Limited, Bhubaneswar (IPICOL) for allotment of Ac.30.0 land for expansion of their industry. On 10.01.2007, opposite party No.6 recommended opposite party No.5-Industrial Development Corporation of Orissa, Bhubaneswar (IDCO) for Ac.55.0 acres of land for alienation/acquisition at Matkambeda at Barbil. Since the Company had already got 25 acres, it was recommended for acquiring another 30 acres of land adjoining the industry from the Government and private lands. On 20.06.2007, Department of Steel and Mines, Government of Orissa has granted administrative approval for acquisition of private land of Ac.18.999 decimals in village Matkambeda at Barbil for the above purpose. On 02.07.2007, opposite party No.5 wrote a letter to opposite party No.4-Special Land Acquisition Officer, Keonjhar to acquire the private land measuring Ac.18.999 decimals in village Matkambeda under Barbil Tahasil. On 05.02.2008, opposite party No.3 issued Notification under section 4(1) read with Section 17(4) of the L.A. Act. Subsequently on 26.02.2008 (Annexure-4/2) another notice under Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act was issued by the Joint Secretary to Government, Department of Revenue and Disaster Management. On 26.02.2009, Notification (Annexure-5) under Section 6(1) of the L.A. Act was issued. According to the petitioners, though notice dated 26.02.2009 (Annexure-5) was issued under Section 6(1) of the L.A. Act it refers to Notification under Section 4(1) dated 26.02.2008 and 10.03.2009. On 31.07.2007, the petitioners purchased Plot No.486/1287 measuring Ac.1.0 of land vide RSD No.330 dated 31.07.2007 for setting up of a petrol pump. On 30.03.2009, petitioners applied to the Collector, Keonjhar for release of the aforesaid land purchased by them from the acquisition. On 30.04.2009, opposite party No.4 requested opposite party No.5 for consideration of exclusion of the said plot.
3. Mr. H. S. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Notification under section 4(1) read with Section 17(4) of the L.A. Act as per Annexure-4/1 and Notification in continuation thereof under Annexure-5 are nothing but a colourable exercise of power by the State Government. In order to exercise the power under Section 17 of the L.A. Act, it is incumbent upon the State to consider the requirements before taking possession, such as, declaration under Section 6(1), general notice under Section 9(1), demarcation under Section 8, 15 days’ time to take possession and that there is urgency. In the instant case, there is no urgency because the requisitionist as well as the State Government is casual in acquiring the land, as urgency was pleaded in 2006 and the Notification was published in 2009. Possession of the land is not taken till now as no amount is deposited b
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
