Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Orissa High Court

Golaka Bihari Kanhar And Others vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 24 August, 2021

Author: B.P. Routray

Bench: B.P. Routray

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                             W.P. (C) No. 18872 of 2021

            Golaka Bihari Kanhar and others         ....          Petitionerss
                                                    Mr. R.K. Rout, Advocate
                                         -versus-
            State of Odisha and others             ....     Opposite Parties
                                              Mrs. Saswata Patnaik, A.G.A.


                      CORAM:
                      THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                      JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY

                                       ORDER

24.08.2021 Order No.

04. 1. The Petitioners, who are resident of Gunjuguda Panchayat under Mouza-Baida in the district of Kandhamal have filed the present writ petition alleging that the land, which has been recorded as Kisam 'Gochar' was sought to be de- reserved for alienation in favour of IDCO for establishment of industries.

2. The Tahasildar, Kandhamal issued a notice on 8th October, 2020 inviting objections for such de-reservation.

3. The Petitioners' claim that they filed written objections signed by a large number of people, but without giving them an opportunity of hearing, the Collector approved the proposal of the Tahasildar and proceeded to change the Kisam of the land from 'Gochar' to 'Patita'. A copy of the Page 1 of 4 changed ROR dated 31st December, 2020 has been enclosed in the petition.

4. Reliance has been placed on Section 3 (1)(a) of the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act (OGLS Act) read with Rule 5 (5) and (6) of the OGLS Rules as well as Rule-4 (2)(i) and (ii) of OGLS Rule, 1983.

5. In the present petition, while directing notice to be issued on 2nd July, 2021, an interim order was passed staying the alienation / transfer of the land in favour of IDCO.

6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Opposite Parties 2 and 3 on 6th August, 2021. Inter alia it is stated therein that IDCO had made request for lease of the suit land for establishment of industries by a letter dated 3rd September, 2020. On receipt of such letter, the ROR was verified by the Tahasildar and the suit land was found to be recorded under Rakhit Khata in Gochar Kissam. The Revenue Inspector, Bisipada submitted a report on 5th October, 2020 his calculation of the effective area of the village along with the extent of Gochar Land. The report revealed that "effective area of the village is Hc 92.993 and the extent of Gocahr land available is Hc7.827. According to Rule 4 (2)(i) of the Orissa Government Land Settlement Rules, 1983, the extent of Gochar land to be reserved for every surveyed village which is not included in urban area is 5% of the effective area."

7. It is explained by the Opposite Parties that surplus Gochar land to the extent of Hc.3.178 is in fact available and this was beyond the reasonable requirement for the Revenue Village in question.

8. It is then stated that the Tahasildar invited objections by a proclamation dated 7th October, 2020, which received publicity. Notice was issued to the objectors, which included Petitioners 2, 3, 35 and 37 fixing 11th November, 2020 for hearing of their objections. It is specifically averred that a copy of the notice of hearing dated 4th November, 2020 was duly received by the objectors. It is then stated that on 11th November, 2020, "Ganapati Kanhar, Umacharan Kanhar, Biswamitra Digal, Bhagiram Digal appeared before the OP No-3 and were heard in person." Therefore, there is a specific denial of the allegation that the de-reservation was done without hearing the Petitioners. It is further averred that there were two rounds of informal discussion held by the Additional District Magistrate, Kandhamal with the objectors.

9. The Court is satisfied that there is no procedural illegality in de-reservation of the land in question. The reply also encloses a copy of the order of the Sub-Collector, Kandhamal, Phulbani dated 24th March, 2021 submitted to the Additional District Magistrate, Kandhamal, where inter alia it is explained as under:

"As regards suitability of the land is concerned, this land is most appropriate to be used for developmental purposes. It is adjacent to the Dist. Hdqtrs and well communicated by two main roads. In Phulbani District, most of the land is recorded as Jungle Kisam and hardly any suitable land is available for carrying out developmental activities. The developmental needs of the District and its inhabitants cannot be overlooked. Further, if it is put to any developmental use by IDCO it will have beneficial effect on the villagers.

I therefore, found no bonafide reason in the grievance petition and hence recommend for the use of the proposed land for greater developmental activities in public interest."

10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this court is satisfied that there is no infraction of any of the statutory procedure requires any Court order and in particular the Petitioners had been an adequate opportunity of hearing before the de-reservation of land. No grounds are made out for interference. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

11. The interim order passed earlier stands vacated.

(Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice ( B.P. Routray ) Judge A.K. Mishra/M. Panda Page 4 of 4