Orissa High Court
Rojalin Pradhan vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 29 April, 2025
Author: Murahari Sri Raman
Bench: Murahari Sri Raman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.18389 of 2024
Rojalin Pradhan .... Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Advocates appeared in this case:
For Petitioner : Mr. Biswambar Mohanty, Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Ms. Aishwarya Dash
Additional Standing Counsel
CORAM:
HON' BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
JUDGMENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of hearing and judgment: 29th April, 2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARISH TANDON, CJ.
1. The pleading in the instant writ petition at the behest of a
Sarpanch of a Gram Panchayat leaves no ambiguity in our mind
that it is more a personal interest litigation than a Public Interest
Litigation (PIL). The writ petition is filed pretending that it is in
the nature of public interest but in fact, raising a grievance to avoid
any scuttle in the mind of the villagers of the said Gram Panchayat
who elected the Panchayat members which resulted into the
selection of a Sarpanch. The right to acquire the land is vested in a
sovereign and emerged from a doctrine of eminent domain. The
sovereign can acquire the property for larger public purposes
benefitting the large section of the society and in lieu of the
deprivation of the land, the law in place mandates determination of
a market value as compensation to be paid to the persons whose
land is taken for the public purpose.
2. Initially, the Right to Property was enshrined within Part-
III of the Constitution of India which was subsequently taken away
and found place in the form of Article 300A of the Constitution of
India. The Right to Property is no doubt a Constitutional right and
is no longer a Fundamental Right and if the Government intends to
acquire the land for the benefit of a large number of people, so
long the public purpose exists, it is not open to a citizen to claim
that the Government cannot take the immovable property.
3. Interestingly, this Public Interest Litigation is filed at the
behest of the Sarpanch, solely, on the basis of a resolution that the
decision to acquire the property has been taken and the process of
law is activated. The Sarpanch as petitioner uses the tool of the
Public Interest Litigation to achieve the purpose which could have
been achieved otherwise under the Right to Information Act. It is
prayed in the instant writ petition whether any acquisition
proceeding has been initiated, if initiated, under what provision of
law. If the acquisition has been made, whether any rehabilitation
and/or resettlement scheme has been framed for those persons,
whose land has been acquired by the Government. A litigant
should not be permitted to treat the Court as a forum for gathering
evidence or fishing out evidence nor the writ Court should be
converted into a Court of convenience. A litigant must plead
explicitly which would give a colour of a public nature and cannot
settle their personal scores using the fiat of Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
4. Since the Public Interest Litigation was entertained at an
earlier point of time and a question was raised on the locus standi
of the Sarpanch to maintain the Public Interest Litigation, it is
arduously submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the
office of the Sarpanch is not an office of profit as he renders pro
bono services.
5. We do not delve to go into such aspect whether the office
of the Sarpanch is an office of profit as we find that the issues
which could have been resolved through other form of the writ, the
writ in the nature of Public Interest Litigation cannot be said to be
maintainable. Though there is no distinction in the Constitution
conferring power upon the High Courts or the Supreme Court
under Article 226 or 32 of the Constitution of India respectively
relating to a Public Interest Litigation but, the genesis thereof can
be traced from a common law principle duly accepted and adopted
in the Indian legal parlance. It is an effective tool where the Court
can step in directing the Government not to transgress the statutory
barriers nor should act selectively but must act in fairness without
inculcating a sense of discrimination into the citizenry.
6. In recent times, the writ in nature of Public Interest
Litigation is exploding the dockets of the High Court in relation to
an infringement of a personal right arising under the realm of a
private law or at times, injury suffered by an individual because of
the wrong application of law or non-adherence of law or at times in
flagrant violation of law. The writ under Article 226 of the
Constitution encompasses the remedy to an aggrieved person but
by no stretch of imagination, it can be resorted under the Public
Interest Litigation.
7. We do not find that the petitioner has made out a case to
bring within the ambit of the Public Interest Litigation but
pretending that it would impact a large number of villagers, the
Public Interest Litigation came to be filed at the behest of a
Sarpanch.
8. Two issues were raised by the villagers, one in relation to
acquisition proceeding initiated under Act 1 of 1894 for NALCO
and the other under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency
in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 in
relation to Vedanta.
9. Ms. Dash, learned Additional Standing Counsel (ASC) for
the State submits that so far as the acquisition relating to NALCO
is concerned, it was initiated under Act 1 of 1894 and after
determination of the market value, the award was passed by the
Collector and the amount deposited in terms of Section 11 of the
said Act. The moment the Collector awarded the compensation, the
possession of the property vests into the Government and whether
any rehabilitation or resettlement scheme should be framed by the
Government is in effect a policy decision to be taken before the
Act of 2013 came into force.
10. However, the Government has consciously adopted a
policy by framing the rehabilitation and resettlement scheme and
the persons who have lost their land, have received the benefit
therefrom and according to the learned ASC for the State, such
process is still ongoing. So far as the acquisition for Vedanta is
concerned, it is fairly submitted by the learned ASC for the State
that apart from a notification under Section 4 of the 2013 Act, no
steps have yet been taken for publication of a declaration and,
therefore, in our opinion, the same is at the nebulous stage and no
right is fructified into a person.
11. From whatever angle we look at, do not find that the
instant writ petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation is
maintainable, either in law or on facts.
12. The writ petition is hereby dismissed.
(Harish Tandon)
Chief Justice
(M.S. Raman)
Judge
S. Behera
A. Nanda
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 01-May-2025 14:42:50
