KAILASH CHANDRA AGARWAL Vs. TAHASILDAR, BOLANGRI & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the orders passed in OLR Case No.16/96 vide Annexure-5 and consequential demand notice vide Annexure-6.

(2.) In assailing the impugned order vide Annexure-5, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the petitioner was initially holding a patch of land extending Acre 5.83 decimals. The petitioner taking approval of the District Industry Centre installed an industrial establishment for having manufacturing activity dealing with coal brickets, edible oil and Chuda over one forth acre of the entire land. When the petitioner was in possession over the entire land, by Annexure-2 a document appearing at page No.14, acre 2.05 decimals of land out of the petitioner's above land was acquired by the State Government following the procedures under the Land Acquisition Act for the purpose of Industrial Development Centre in the locality. Therefore, Sri Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner thus contended that after acquisition of Acre 2.05 decimals of land, the petitioner remained in possession of Acre 3.78 decimals of land but the fact remains the petitioner had the industrial establishment with approval of the Government over only 3 /4th acre of the land since 1985. When the matter stood thus, a proceeding under Section 8 of the OLR Act was initiated against the petitioner on the alleged illegal conversion of land. Petitioner appearing in the proceeding filed his objection inter alia contending therein that since the schedule lands are kept reserve for industrial development by Government of Orissa, hence, the scheduled land lost its original character and has become automatically a non-agricultural land. Further since the petitioner has already set up an industrial unit over a portion of the disputed land after obtaining necessary permission from the District Industry Centre and the change in the nature and character of that portion of land having taken place prior to coming into force of Section 8 of the OLR Act, the proceeding was not maintainable. In opposing the impugned order, the petitioner in drawing the attention of this Court to various documents and pleadings taken in the writ petition further contended that the land beyond the industrial establishment installed by the petitioner are all agricultural land and have never been converted. Under the circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that neither the reports submitted by the Revenue Inspector at page 33 nor the order passed in the Section 8 proceeding vide Annexure-5 are sustainable.

(3.) In his opposition, learned State Counsel in drawing the attention of this Court to the objection filed by the petitioner in the proceeding under Section 8 of the OLR Act contended that the petitioner did not raise all the above objections before the authority taking up the proceeding under Section 8 of the OLR Act. Therefore, many of the grounds taken herein were not available for being considered by the authority while passing the impugned order. Further, in referring to the report submitted by the R.I., learned State Counsel also contended that in view of the clear report against the petitioner submitted by the R.I., there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order leaving any scope to interfere in the same.