RAM KUMAR JHUNJHUNWALA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner who is the recorded tenant of plot No. 78 of khata No. 107 in mouza bisinabar, Cuttack Town. Plots Nos. 149, 150, 151 and 153 within the said mouza are homestead plots located in the neighbourhood of the petitioner's land, but plot no. 78 intercepts these plots from the Municipal road. A sketch map is on record which shows the location of these plots at the spot. Plot No. 153 located nearabout is a big tank whose embankment was providing a circuitous approach from another municipal road to these plots from a different side. The owners of these homestead plots who are quite a number of people approached the municipal authorities of Cuttack for construction of a road to link up these plots with the nearby municipal road and thereby provide a convenient outlet to the inhabitants of this area. The Municipal authorities decided that such a road in the interests of the inhabitants of the area should be provided and requested the State Government to acquire a part of the intervening Plot No. 78 of the petitioner to accommodate this proposed link road. The State Government took action under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and issued a notice under Section 4 and invited objections under section 5-A of the Act. The petitioner's case is that he did not know about the notice under Section 4 and that for the first time he came to know about this acquisition when a notice under Section 6 of the Act dated 15-5-1965 was published declaring the acquisition to be for a public purpose. The petitioner's further case is that the acquisition is not for a public purpose and only 3 or 4 persons are the direct beneficiaries of this acquisition. The petitioner cannot be deprived of his property by the process under the Land Acquisition Act in order to benefit some individuals, and the mere declaration under Section 6 of the Act that it is for a public purpose is not binding and cannot clothe the notification with the immunity that a valid notification under Section 6 of the Act is entitled to. Therefore, according to the petitioner, there is no public purpose and the acquisition must be quashed.

(2.) ON behalf of the State of Orissa a counter-affidavit has been filed by the additional District Magistrate of Cuttack. Therein it has been stated as follows :-

(3.) UNDER the scheme of the Act, acquisitions are contemplated for the State, local bodies and companies. Part VII provides the procedure for acquisition of land for companies. Section 6 which deals with the declaration that the land is required for a public purpose provides as follows :--