LAWS(ORI)-2014-4-45

BADRI N.DASH Vs. STATE

Decided On April 25, 2014
Badri N.Dash Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a public interest litigation. Challenge is made to the lease of an area of Ac.33.50 decimals of land in village Indranipatna under Tangi -Choudwar Tahasil in the district of Cuttack by the Orissa Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation, opposite party no.3, in favour of M/s.Toshali Cement Pvt. Ltd., opposite party no.4, for setting up of a cement grinding unit.

(2.) THE main grievance of the petitioner is that the leasehold area is a mountain. The village is protected by the said mountain. It is further asserted that if the cement industry is established in the village, it will cause environmental pollution. Pursuant to issuance of notice, opposite parties 1 and 2 entered appearance and filed a counter affidavit. In paragraph -6 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that on 17.3.2005, the General Manager (P&A), IDCO, Bhubaneswar filed requisition for sanction of lease of Government land for industrial activities. Since the land in question was recorded under Rakhit Khata with Kissam -Unnat Jojana Jogya (Basti Jogya) as per record -of -right published in the year 1973 -74, a case was initiated for its de -reservation. After maintaining all formalities, Collector, Cuttack approved de -reservation proposal allowing change of status of land. Thereafter, record - of -right was corrected. It is further asserted that after necessary correction in the record -of -right, Lease Case No.113 of 2005 was processed and submitted to the Collector, Cuttack for sanction of land in favour of opposite party no.3. The Collector, Cuttack accorded sanction of lease of Ac.108.06 decimal of land of Mouza -Indranipatna subject to payment of premium, ground rent and cess as prescribed in Industrial Policy Resolution, 2001. In Paragraph -7, a specific stand was taken that neither there is any tree over the lease hold area nor it is an ancient mountain.

(3.) WE have heard Mr.Achary, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.R.K.Mohapatra, learned Government Advocate for the State and Mr.R.K.Rath, learned Senior Advocate for opposite party no.4.