MAHESH PRASAD BHAGAT Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A matter of some importance relating to the implemention of the Urban Land (Ceilig and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter, 'the Act') has coma up for consideration in this petition, The question is whether the land -holder can claim that the vacant land within the ceiling limit which has been specified by him Under Section 6 of the Act must be allowed to be retained by him. Section 6 of the Act requires the land -holder to specify the vacant land which he desires to retain and Section 8(2)(iii), which deals preparation of draft statement, also requires particulars of the vacant land which such person desires to retain within the ceiling limit to find place in the statement. The question is whether this specification visualised by these two sections confers a right on the land -holder to claim that he must be allowed to retain the land so specified or mentioned.

(2.) THIS question has come up for consideration because it has been found in the present case that a part of the land so described by land -holder is under an encroacher. The case of the State, therefore, is that if this type of land has to form a part of the ceiling, the very object of the Act would be frustrated because that land would not be available for a very long time even if under the Act the land vests in the State and free from all encumbrances, for the purpose of its distribution or for using it for any other public purpose. The land -holder, on the other hand, states that if it would be held that that type of land would form a part of his retainable land, then it may be that he would be virtually left with no land for his own use, in which case the areas of the retaining land mentioned by the statute would serve no purpose so far as he is concerned In some cases, it may even be that the area of retainable land is reduced virtually to nil and the Act becomes ex -proprietary in nature.

(3.) SHRI Das, learned Government Advocate, contends that the support of law in a case of the present nature would be the object of the Act itself which would be frustrated if a land under the trespasser has to be counted as a part of the land which vests in the State. Learned counsel urges that to get possession of such a land, the State shall have either to use the provisions of Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act or Orissa Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act which would be a long drawn affair and the result would be that the possession of the land, even if obtained, would take years and the salutary object of the Act would be frustrated. He also submits in this connection that an encroacher cannot be evicted by force of the provisions contained in Section 10 of the Act inasmuch as the persons who can be evicted even by use of force as mentioned in Sub -section (6) are those who are holding the land under a lease or a mortgage or a hire purchase agreement or an irrevocable power of attorney, of which mention has been made in Section 9 of the Act.