Orissa High Court
Madhu Murmu & Others vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opposite ... on 16 April, 2024
Author: Murahari Sri Raman
Bench: Murahari Sri Raman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.5426 of 2024
Madhu Murmu & Others .... Petitioners
Mr. Sourav Suman Bhuyan, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
Mr.Debakanta Mohanty, Addl. Govt. Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Order No. ORDER
03. 16.04.2024 This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.
2. The petitioners claim that they belong to Scheduled Tribes recognised under law and are residents of village Anandpur of Purunapani Gram Panchayat in the district of Mayurbhanj. It is the petitioners' case that the said area is a Scheduled Area within the meaning of clause (1) of Article 244 of the Constitution of India. In the said area, 415 acres of land is proposed to be acquired for establishing a Steel Plant. It is the case of the petitioners that the mandatory requirement of the provisions under Section 4(i) of the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (for short, "the PESA Act") has not been complied with for acquisition of land, inasmuch as Gram Sabhas/Panchayats at appropriate level of the area have not been consulted.
3. In the present writ petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation, the petitioners have put to challenge an order dated Page 1 of 3 11.01.2024 passed by the Collector, Mayurbhanj wherein, on an objection raised with reference to Section 4(i) of the PESA Act, the Collector has rejected the objection with the following findings:-
"F I N D I N G S In fact, resolution was passed unanimously by the Purunapani Gram Panchayat on 10.03.2023 granting its approval for establishment of an Industry by M/s Rungta Metals Pvt. Ltd. consisting of the villages of Anandpur, Dandbose and Kantabani under Rairangpur Block. This constitutes compliance with the provisions of Section 4(i) of the PESA Act cited by the petitioners. The so-called Gram Sabhas under claim of the petitioners have not been conducted by following due procedure of the statutory provisions of law. Hence, fresh Gram Sabha is to be convened/conducted following due procedure under the statutory provisions of law."
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has, however, submitted that said findings are cryptic. He further submits that in terms of the said findings recorded by the Collector, Mayurbhanj, it is incumbent that Gram Sabhas of these three villages namely, Anandpur, Dandbose and Kantabani of Purunapani Gram Panchayat should be convened separately and such Gram Sabhas should not consist of all the villages of that Panchayat together. He has relied on the definition of "Gram Sabha" under Article 243 (b) of the Constitution of India which reads as under:-
"(b) "Gram Sabha" means a body consisting of persons registered in the electoral rolls relating to a village comprised within the area of Panchayat at the village level."
He has further submitted that if the Gram Sabha is to be held in compliance of the impugned order passed by the Collector dated Page 2 of 3 11.01.2024, the same must be held under the supervision of the District Judge, Mayurbhanj.
5. We outright reject the prayer of the petitioners for holding Gram Sabha of the villages under the supervision of the concerned District Judge as we do not find any controversy of such nature requiring issuance of any such direction. From the impugned order, we find that the Collector, Mayurbhanj in all fairness has reached at a conclusion that Gram Sabha had not been held and, accordingly, he has issued following direction:-
"In view of the above, I order to convene fresh Gram Sabha for acquisition of land in favour of IDCO towards setting up of a plant by M/s Rungta Metals Pvt. Ltd following due procedure as per law."
6. We have no reason at this juncture to presume that the Gram Sabhas shall be convened not in accordance with the requirement of Article 243 (b) of the Constitution of India. No interference of this Court is required for the present.
7. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of with the above-noted observation.
(Chakradhari Sharan Singh) Chief Justice (M.S. Raman) Judge Aswini Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ASWINI KUMAR SETHY Designation: Personal Assistant (Secretary-in-charge) Reason: Authentication Page 3 of 3 Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Apr-2024 15:08:58