Orissa High Court
Afr vs State Of Orissa And Ors on 25 August, 2023
ORISSA HIGH COURT: CUTTACK
W.P.(C) NO. 13068 OF 2016
In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India.
--------------
AFR
Kasti Turuk ..... Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Orissa and Ors. ..... Opp. Parties
For petitioner : M/s. S.K. Bhanjadeo, P. Panda
and S.B. Ray, Advocates
For opp. parties : Mr. L. Samantaray,
Addl. Govt. Advocate
[O.Ps.No.1-3]
M/s. S.P. Sarangi, D.K. Das,
D. Mahapatra, V. Mohapatra &
P.K. Dash, Advocates
[O.P.No.4]
P R E S E N T:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE B.R.SARANGI
AND
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMAN
Date of hearing and judgment : 25.08.2023
DR. B.R. SARANGI, J. The petitioner, by means of this writ
petition, seeks to quash the order dated 10.03.2016
under Annexure-10, by which opposite party no.2-
// 2 //
Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Southern Division,
Berhampur has rejected the claim of the petitioner for the
villagers of D. Koral Upper Street in the district of
Rayagada to become displaced persons and the demand
for alternate house, and further to issue direction to
opposite party no.4 to provide alternative house site and
adequate compensation in favour of those villagers.
2. The factual matrix of the case, in a nutshell, is
that the petitioner, claiming to be the President of the
Village Development Committee of D. Koral Upper Street,
has filed this writ petition seeking reliefs, as mentioned
above, and contended that he filed a representation on
19.01.2015 before the Revenue Divisional Commissioner,
Southern Division, Odisha, Berhampur. Though hearing
on the representation of the petitioner was initially fixed
to 03.02.2015 at Rayagada, it could not take place.
Subsequently, the date was deferred to 08.01.2016 and
the petitioner as well as Collector, Rayagada were
intimated to attend the hearing at the office of the
Revenue Divisional Commissioner, SD, Odisha,
Berhampur. Pursuant to notice, the petitioner along with
// 3 //
his advocate, Collector, Rayagada and LAO, Rayagada
attended the hearing on 08.01.2016. On that day, the
petitioner prayed for time and it was allowed fixing the
date of next hearing on 20.02.2016. The hearing could
not take place on 20.02.2016 and the next date was fixed
to 02.03.2016, which was intimated to all concerned.
2.1 On 02.03.2016, the final hearing was
conducted. The petitioner along with his advocate;
Collector, Rayagada; LAO, Rayagada; representatives of
Utkal Alumina Industries Ltd. and their advocate were
present. All the parties were heard. It was stated that the
total land of the village D. Koral Upper Street is
Ac.450.00, out of which Ac.390.00, i.e., 90% of the total
land of the village has been acquired by M/s Utkal
Alumina Ltd. Major portion of this acquired land is
agricultural land. The surrounding area of the village
D.Koral Upper Street is completely within the factory area
and the residential area of the inhabitants was
intentionally not acquired by the Industrial Development
Corporation of Odisha (IDCO) in order to save project
cost.
// 4 //
2.2 Since all the agricultural land of the village
D. Koral Upper Street has been acquired by the
company, the inhabitants have no agricultural income and
he n ce , sh ou l d be de cla re d a s di spl ace d person s .
The l ist o f Inhabitants, whose land has been acquired but
they have not been declared as displaced persons, as stated
by the petitioner, is at An Annexure-A.
2.3 Due to acquisition of their land, the villagers have
lost their livelihood which was primarily cultivation.
Thereby, the inhabitants of D. Koral Upper Street are
economically downtrodden. Despite acquisition of lesser
extent of land from the inhabitants of D. Koral Lower Street,
they have not been given the status of displaced persons. D.
Koral Upper Street has been affected by pollution, caused due
to smoke coming out of the main chimney of the plant
located nearby. Also pollution caused by vehicular
movement and other activities of the plant is affecting the
inhabitants of D. Koral Upper Street, D. Koral Lower Street
and nearby villages. This has caused health hazards to the
people of the locality. Accordingly, a committee was formed
// 5 //
by the villagers of D. Koral on 27.12.2004 in presence of the
then Collector, Rayagada. The petitioner was elected as
president and, subsequently ventilated the grievance before
the court on behalf of the villagers
2.4 Both the villages, i.e., D. Koral Tala Street and
D. Koral Upper Street are situated at an equal distance
from the Alumina Refinery Plant. They are situated at the
same altitude rather D.Koral Upper Street is very much
suitable for township. Thereby, the petitioner sought that
the inhabitants of the D. Koral Upper Street to be declared
as displaced persons and all the facilities, presently
being provided to the inhabitants of D. Koral Talasahi be
made available to D. Koral Upper Sahi, invoking the
provision under Clause-8 of the Rehabilitation Scheme,
formulated by the Govt. of Odisha.
3. Mr. S.K. Bhanjadeo, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner vehemently contended that the
petitioner, being the President of D. Koral Village
Development Committee, was authorized to ventilate the
grievance of the villagers before the authority to declare
// 6 //
them as displaced persons for acquisition of their 90%
agricultural land. As per the instructions received under
the RTI Act, it was found that the total land acquired by
Utkal Alumina International Ltd. is Ac.2155.46 dec. from
24 villages and out of that only Ac.448.62 dec. of land was
acquired from village D Koral, the total land of which is
Ac.450.77 dec. It is contended that due to non-extension
of benefit, the petitioner initially had approached this
Court by filing W.P.(C) No.5971 of 2005, wherein this
Court observed that if similarly situated persons availed
the benefit, then the petitioner's committee will also be
allotted alternative land outside the factory area, as per
Clause-8 of the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme,
2006. In compliance of the said order, the authority
rejected the grievance of the petitioner, vide order dated
20.11.2007. Challenging the said order, the petitioner
again approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.3265 of
2009 and this Court, vide order dated 24.10.2014,
quashed the order dated 20.11.2007 and remitted the
matter to the authority concerned to consider the
grievance of the petitioner in the light of the observation
// 7 //
made in W.P.(C) No.5971 of 2005 and pass a reasoned
order. It is contended that the authority again, vide order
dated 10.03.2016, rejected the grievance of the petitioner.
Therefore, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
It is further contended that although more than 90% land
of the villagers of village D. Koral have been acquired by
the Utkal Alumina International Ltd., the authority has
rejected the grievance of the petitioner holding that the
major portion of D. Koral Upper Sahi is not within the
project are of the company. It is further contended that
the authority, while rejecting the grievance of the
petitioner, has observed that D. Koral Upper Sahi was not
found suitable for industrial purpose, as because it is
densely populated and that a major portion of the D. Koral
Upper Sahi was excluded from the process of the land
acquisition, although 90% of the land of the villagers of
the petitioner have been acquired by the company.
Therefore, non-declaration of the villagers of village D.
Koral Upper Sahi as displaced persons is arbitrary and
contrary to the provisions of law. Therefore, he seeks
interference of this Court.
// 8 //
4. Mr. L. Samantaray, learned Addl. Government
Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties
contended that the revenue village D. Koral consists of six
hamlets. Total extent of land of D. Koral revenue village is
1729.50 acres, of which 448.59 acres have been acquired
by the Government of Odisha, vide notification dated
18.05.1995 issued under the provision of Section 4(1) of
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which comes to 25.9% only
leaving a balance of 1280.91 acres. It is contended that
out of the total extent of land measuring Ac.1729.50
available in D. Koral revenue village, only 607.26 acres
belong to D. Koral Upper Sahi, of which 589.11 is
agricultural land and 18.15 is non-agricultural land. As
against 589.11 acres of agricultural land, only 265.12
acres have been acquired leaving a balance of 323.99
acres. Similarly, out of 18.15 acres of non-agricultural
land, only 0.27 acres have been acquired leaving a
balance of 17.88 acres with the villagers. Thus, land
measuring Ac.265.39 has been acquired out of total land
of Ac.607.26 of D. Koral Upper Street, which amounts to
43.70%. This is higher than 25.9% of the land acquired
// 9 //
for the entire D. Koral revenue village. At present,
Ac.341.87 balance land is available with the villagers of D.
Koral Upper Sahi. At the time of land acquisition, D. Koral
Upper Street was thickly populated and located on a
sloppy area whereas D. Koral Lower Street is situated in a
flat area. Keeping in view the national policy of minimum
displacement and based on the topographic conditions of
these two villages, major area of the D. Koral Upper Street
was excluded from the process of land acquisition. It is
further contended that the impact assessment report for
the project was done in 2006 and the post commissioning
environmental parameters are monitored on a monthly
basis by the State Pollution Control Board, Odisha. So far
there has been no report regarding violation of the
Consent to Operate conditions. D. Koral Upper Street is at
an aerial distance of 1.8 km from the chimney and the
impact of pollution is negligible on this count. As such,
there is no material placed before the authority with
regard to health hazard caused to the villagers.
5. Mr. D.K. Das, learned counsel appearing for
opposite party no.4-Utkal Alumina International Ltd.
// 10 //
contended that the petitioner, who claims to be the
President of D. Koral (Upper Sahi) Development
Committee, has not been authorized and duly empowered
by the villagers of D. Koral Upper Sahi to ventilate their
grievances before the authority. Therefore, at his behest,
the writ petition is not maintainable before this Court. It
is further contended that the petitioner left D. Koral
village since 40 years and now he is residing in Koraput
and running a private school. The Development
Committee of D. Koral village, of which the petitioner
claims to be selected as President to discuss the grievance
of the villagers of D. Koral with regard to their
rehabilitation, is neither registered nor formed under any
statutory provision of law. Besides, the villagers have
already received the compensation and ex-gratia amount
from the Land Acquisition Officer, Rayagada without any
protest and handed over their lands to the company in the
greater interest for the public purpose. It is further
contended that the petitioner is also involved in active
politics and he had contested the General Election held in
the year 2014 from Koraput Assembly Constituency.
// 11 //
Apart from this, the petitioner is in the habit of filing
many writs/PILs against the company as well as
government officials. Therefore, it is contended that the
writ petition filed at the behest of the petitioner cannot be
sustained and the same should be dismissed.
6. This Court heard Mr. S.K. Bhanjadeo, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner; Mr. L. Samantaray,
learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the
State-opposite parties and Mr. D.K. Das, learned counsel
appearing for opposite party no.4 in hybrid mode and
perused the record. With the consent of learned counsel
for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of
finally at the stage of admission.
7. On the basis of the pleadings available on
record as well as the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the parties, it appears that the Government in
Revenue and Excise Department issued guidelines, vide
letter dated 10.06.1998, that "a family/person shall be
considered as displaced and will be eligible for
rehabilitation benefits if such family/person is a
// 12 //
permanent resident of Odisha and ordinarily resides in
the project area for at least 3 years prior to the date of
publication of notification under Section 4(1) of Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquisition of his/her
homestead land". "Project area" for the purpose of
extending R&R benefit means the land which is
acquired/alienated/purchased for establishment of any
project. The major portion of D. Koral Upper Sahi does not
within the project area of the company. Being situated at
a higher altitude, D. Koral Upper Sahi (Basti area) was not
found suitable for industrial purpose whereas D. Koral
Tala Sahi located on a flat terrain was selected for
acquisition due to its topographic compatibility. Moreover,
D. Koral Upper Sahi was densely populated. Land
acquisition was kept to the minimum following the
guidelines of the national policy of minimum
displacement. Hence, major portion of D. Koral Upper
Sahi was excluded from the process of land acquisition.
Total extent of land of revenue village D. Koral consisting
of six hamlets is Ac. 1729.50. Of this, Ac.448.59 was
acquired for the project by Government of Odisha, vide
// 13 //
notification no.19923 dated 18.05.1995 under Section
4(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which is 25.09% of the
total area leaving a balance of Ac.1280.91. Only 607.26
acres belong to D. Koral Upper Sahi, of which 589.11
acres are agricultural land and 18.15 acres are non-
agricultural land. As against 589.11 acres of agricultural
land, only 265.12 acres have been acquired leaving a
balance of 323.99 acres. Similarly, out of 18.15 acres
non-agricultural land, only 0.27 acres have been acquired
leaving a balance of 17.88 acres with the villagers. Thus,
land measuring Ac.265.39 have been acquired out of total
land of Ac.607.26 of D. Koral Upper Street which amounts
to 43.70%. This is higher than the 25.9% of land acquired
for the entire D. Koral revenue village. At present,
Ac.341.87 of balance land is available with the villagers of
D. Koral Upper Sahi.
8. The Environment Impact Assessment report for
the project was prepared in Feb-April-2006. As is revealed
therefrom, post- commissioning, as per consent to operate
(CTO) conditions, the environmental parameters are
monitored on daily basis. The State Pollution Control
// 14 //
Board (SPCB) is also monitoring the system from time to
time. Ambient Air quality near plant site and the Stack
Emission of Chimneys of the plant are within permissible
limit, as per the conditions stipulated in the consent to
operate (CTO). Emission level inside and outside of the
plants, being regularly monitored by a third party, is
recognized by State Pollution Control Board/Ministry of
Environment and Forest. All parameters of air quality,
water quality and noise level are reported to be within
prescribed norms. Further, D. Koral village is situated at
a distance of 1.8 KMs from the plant and as such is not
likely to be affected due to installation of Chimney of the
plant. The villagers of D. Koral Lower Sahi who are
residing adjacent to D. Koral Upper Sahi since inception
of the plant have never faced any environmental/health
hazard. In this connection not a single medical report of
occupational diseases is found in the peripheral areas due
to operationalization of the plant. With regard to issue of
accessibility, it is found that D. Koral Upper Sahi and
Lower Sahi are situated on adjacent sides of the PWD
road, which passes through the two streets and equality
// 15 //
accessible from both sides. The contentions raised by
learned counsel for the petitioner that there are about 23
families whose homestead land has been acquired and
they have to be declared as displaced families. The
remaining families, which were not eligible to be declared
as displaced, accepted compensation as per their
entitlement.
9. It may be noted that the land was acquired for
the economic growth of the country, which is in the
greater interest of the public and involves 'public
purpose'. In lieu of such acquisition of land,
compensation was paid and the same was received by the
villagers without any protest. Therefore, 'public purpose'
means a purpose which confers or is conducive to the
good of a considerable section of the community at large
or of the locality or region, like construction of schools,
temples, churches, mosques, choultries, road, hospitals,
and office building of a local body or local authority, but
not any purpose which is but ancillary to a public
purpose.
// 16 //
10. In State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh, AIR
1952 SC 252, the apex Court held that whatever furthers
the general interests of the community as opposed to the
particular interest of the individual must be regarded as a
public purpose.
11. In State Of Bombay v. Bhanji Munji and
Anr., AIR 1955 SC 41, the apex Court held that it is not
absolutely necessary to the validity of the land acquisition
proceeding that, the statement that the land sought to be
acquired was needed for a public purpose, should find a
place in the notification actually issued. The requirements
of the law will be satisfied if, in substance, it is found on
investigation, and the appropriate Government is satisfied
as a result of the investigation that the land was needed
for the purposes of a company, which would amount to a
public purpose.
12. In (Pandit) Jhandu Lal v. State of Punjab,
AIR 1961 SC 343, the apex Court held that the essential
condition for acquisition for a public purpose is that the
// 17 //
cost of the acquisition should be borne, wholly or in part,
out of public funds.
13. In Somawanti v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963
SC 151, the apex Court observed that the expression
'public purpose' would include a purpose in which the
general interest of the community as opposed to the
particular interest of individuals is directly and vitally
concerned.
14. In State of Karnataka v. Ranganath Reddy,
(1977) 4 SCC 471, the apex Court observed that the
expression 'public purpose' as used in Article 23(2)
indicates that the Constitution used those words in large
sense. We must regard as 'public purpose' all, that will be
calculated to promote the welfare of the people as
envisaged in Directive Principles of State Policy whatever
else that expression may mean.
15. In Bhim Singhji v. Union of India, (1981) 1
SCC 166, the apex Court held that the concept of 'public
purpose' necessarily implies that it should be a law for the
acquisition or requisition of property in the interest of the
// 18 //
general public, and the purpose of such a law directly
subserves public interest.
16. In Daulat Singh Surana v. First Land
Acquisition Collector, (2007) 1 SCC 641, the apex Court
observed that the expression 'public purpose', in a broad
sense, would include a purpose in which the general
interest of the community as opposed to the particular
interest of the individuals is directly and virtually
concerned. The concept of 'public purpose' would include
the matters, such as, safety, security, health, welfare and
prosperity of the community or public at large.
17. Applying the above principles to the present
context, since the land in question has been acquired for
the public purpose and the persons, who have been
displaced, have been granted benefit by paying
compensation and some of the families have been
declared as displaced families, which have been provided
alternative accommodation by providing houses and other
benefits, the remaining families, which have not been
// 19 //
evicted from their own houses, are not entitled to get such
benefits in the larger interest of the public.
18. In view of such position, the grievance raised by
the petitioner to declare the villagers of D. Koral Upper
Street in the district of Rayagada as displaced persons
and give them alternate house and other benefits cannot
be sustained in the eye of law.
19. In the result, the writ petition merits no
consideration and the same stands dismissed. But,
however, under the circumstances of the case, there shall
be no order as to costs.
..............................
DR. B.R. SARANGI,
JUDGE
M.S. RAMAN, J. I agree.
..............................
M.S. RAMAN,
JUDGE
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 25th August, 2023, Alok
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ALOK RANJAN SETHY
Designation: Secretary
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court
Date: 29-Aug-2023 17:45:58
