MANILAL SINGHANIA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA THROUGH COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE owner of certain property where an industry was proposed to be located is the Petitioner aggrieved by the order of refusal of the Land Acquisition Officer to make a reference to the Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for determination of compensation.

(2.) RELEVANT facts necessary for disposal of the civil revision are the following: On 19 -4 -1963, there was a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act notifying the intention of the State Government to acquire certain properties. Thereafter there were series of inter -departmental correspondence regarding the propriety of acquiring the land where an industry is proposed to be set up. By this process there was delay. In the meantime came the decision of the Supreme Court in The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. v. Vishnu Prasad Sharma and Ors. : A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 1593 where the process of withholding notification under Section 6 of the Act indefinitely was criticized. The Central Government came with an Ordinance fixing the upper limit of 3 years between the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and the notification envisaged in Section 6 thereof and prohibited making the declarations under Section 6 in respect of notifications under Section 4(1) after lapse of, three years. The Ordinance in due course came into the Statute book by way of amendment under Central Act 13 of 1967. In the instant case, as a sequel to the Amending Act, no declaration could be made and, therefore, the acquisition automatically did not proceed. According to the Petitioner soon after the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the Land Acquisition Officer had called upon him not to make any improvement on the property. Petitioner's case is that on account of the prohibition and the consequences of delaying the acquisition proceeding, serious loss is caused to the Petitioner. He maintains that the matter comes within the ambit of Section 48 of the Act and in view of Sub -section (3) thereof, the provisions of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act applied and when a reference was asked for it should have been made. This Court, has, therefore, been moved under Section 18(3) of the Act as amended in Orissa for a direction to the Land Acquisition Officer to, make a reference.

(3.) RELIANCE is placed by the learned Government Advocate certain observations of the Supreme Court in the case already referred to above. Sarkar, J., as the learned Judge then was wrote a separate judgment supporting the dismissal of the appeal while Wanchoo, J., as the learned -Judge then was, spoke for the majority. The conclusion was a common one. In the majority view, it was observed: