No person can be deprived of property without compensation, and a belated challenge to acquisition proceedings cannot be entertained.

JUDGMENT :

B.S. Chauhan, C.J. - The case has a checkered history as the Petitioner had earlier approached this Court through the "Rourkela Local Displaced Association" & had challenged the land acquisition proceeding. The said petition was dismissed. The Association approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court & the Apex Court made certain observations on the basis of which the present petition has been filed.

2. This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the constitutional validity of the provisions of the "Orissa Development of Industries, Irrigation, Capital Construction and Resettlement of Displaced persons (Land Acquisition Act) Act, 1948" (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") on the grounds that the provisions providing for acquisition of land under the said Act had been violative of the provisions of Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India and after amendment of the Constitution of Articles 31A and 300A of the Constitution of India and as a consequence, seeking declaration that any acquisition made under the said Act is null and void. Further, relief has been sought to retain the land possessed by the Petitioner as it has not been utilized for the purpose it stood acquired.

3. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that a huge area including the land of the forefathers of Petitioner situate in revenue village Kantajhar, district Sundargarh (amongst others) stood notified u/s 3(1) of the Act on 19th May, 1955, for establishment of Rourkela Steel Plant and acquisition proceedings were concluded. Petitioner claims that his forefathers had neither been paid compensation for the land acquired nor they were dispossessed from the land and thus, he is still continuing in possession. In the revenue record names of his father and forefathers continued and name of Rourkela Steel Plant was recorded for the first time in 1993. A huge area of land had not been utilized for the purpose of establishment of the steel plant and a portion of the said land was, returned to the Government in 1962. It has been utilised for purposes other than the purpose for which it had been acquired. The Act stood repealed in 1994. The Petitioner and his family members had been harassed by the Opposite Parties- authorities by initiating proceedings under the provisions of the "Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972" (hereinafter referred to as "OPLE Act"). Some similarly situated persons, who were dispossessed or were likely to be dispossessed, filed three Writ Petitions through their Association before this Court being W.P.(C) No. 15654 of 2005, W.R(C) No. 4441 of 2006 and W.P.(C) No. 2308 of 2007 which were heard and dismissed vide Judgment and Order Dated 5.12.2008. Though the Petitioners in those cases had challenged the constitutional validity of the provisions of the Act, this Court did not consider the said submissions. The said Association filed SLP (Civil) Nos. 1859-1861 of 2009 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which have been dismissed. However, observations have been made therein that the dismissal of the petitions filed by the Association would not come in way of any person/individual agitating his right in accordance with law, if he has any existing enforceable right. Hence this petition.

4. Mr. Bharat Kumar Misra, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has contended that provisions of the Act were ultra vires & unconstitutional as no person could be deprived from his immovable property without following the procedure prescribed by law & without paying the compensation. The Act was violative of the provisions of Article 31A & after its. deletion, of Article 300A of the Constitution. The right to property earlier had been a fundamental right & now it is a constitutional & human right. Although the Act stood repealed in 1994, that would not change the position, for the reason that compensation had not been paid to the Petitioner's forefathers. They had also not been, dispossessed. The land was not required for the purpose i