MANGAL ORAM S DEVI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment would dispose of three civil Appeals Nos. 1237 and 1238 of 1972 and 1730 of 1973 against the judgment of Orissa High Court. The first two appeals have been filed on certificate, while the third appeal has been filed by special leave.

(2.) We may first deal with civil appeals 1237 and 1238. On February 22, 1954 a notification was issued under sub-s. (1) of S. 3 of the Orissa Development of Industries, Irrigation, Agriculture, Capital Construction and Resettlement of Displaced Persons (Land Acquisition) Act, 1948 (Orissa Act XVIII of 1948) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the Government of Orissa for the acquisition of 78 square miles of land for the "development of industries, namely, establishment of a steel plant and allied and ancillary industries." The steel plant mentioned in the notification subsequently came to be known as the Rourkela steel plant. Another notification was issued on February 9, 1955 for the acquisition of further four square miles of land for the above purpose. It may be mentioned that according to S. 5 (1) of the Act, when a notice of acquisition is served or is published under S. 4, the land shall vest absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances on the date the notice is served or published in the gazette. The appellant, who were owners of some of the acquired lands, filed writ petitions before the High Court challenging the validity of the acquisition. The High Court dismissed both the petitions.

(3.) In appeal before us, Mr. Gobind Das on behalf of the appellants has contended that the State Government was not competent to acquire the land in question under the Act for the establishment of a steel plant. Our attention is invited in this connection to sub-s. (1) of S. 3 of the Act which provides inter alia that whenever it appears to the State Government that it is necessary or expedient to acquire speedily any land for the purpose of the development of industry, a notification to that effect shall be published in the gazette stating the area and the boundaries of the land proposed to be acquired. The argument of Mr. Gobind Das is that the acquisition of the land for the establishment of a steel palnt cannot be said to be for the purpose of the development of the industry. It is not denied by the learned counsel that a steel plant constitutes an industrial undertaking and that the object of establishing a steel plant is not different from the purpose of the development of the industry as ordinarily understood. It also cannot be disputed that Rourkela steel plant constitutes a big milestone in the industrial development of the country. The contention of Mr. Gobind Das, however, is that the words "development of industries" have a limited meaning as defined in the Act and the establishment of a steel plant cannot be considered to be for development of industries. The definition of "development of industries" has been given in S. 2 (c) of the Act. According to the definition, development of industries means and includes the construction of the Hirakud Dam and other dams and reservoirs, Hydro-Electric Projects and such other schemes or projects as the State Government may, by notification from time to time, specify in this behalf. We have already mentioned above that the first notification for the acquisition of land was issued on February 22, 1954. Two days before that notification, on February 20, 1954 the Governor of Orissa issued a notification in pursuance of Cl. (c) of S. 2 of the Act. In that notification, it was stated that the project for the establishment of a steel plant and allied and ancillary industries in the block of villages round about Rourkela, shall be included within the meaning of the expression "development of industries", as defined in Cl. (c) of S. 2 of the Act. In the face of this notification, we are of the opinion that the establishment of the steel plant and ancillary industries at Rourkela should be held to answer to the definition of "development of industries", as given in the Act. We are unable to subscribe to the submission of Mr. Gobind Das that the schemes and projects which could be the subject-matter of a notification under S. 2 (c) must be such as are similar to Hirakud Dam or other Hydro-Electric Projects. Clause (c) of S. 2 confers wide powers on the State Government to notify any scheme or project as it may consider appropriate for the development of industries and we find nothing in that clause that the scheme or project which can be the subject-matter of a notification must be one similar to Hirakud Dum or other dams or reservoirs or hydro-electric projects.