AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Arindam Sinha, J
Mr. Namtoar, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client was favoured with approval for allotment of lease of land in Barbil town. He draws attention to communication dated 13th October, 2011. The communication was made by General Manager-cum-Member Secretary, District Single Widow Clearance Authority, to the Tahasildar. First paragraph from the communication is reproduced below.
“I am to inform that the District Single Widow Clearance Authority of Keonjhar District in its meeting held on 05.09.2011 under the Chairmanship of Collector & District Magistrate Keonjhar has approved the proposal for allotment of Govt. land measuring A0.10 as per the land particulars given below which has been inspected and recommended by you in your letter hearing letter No.2692/Dtd. 23.07.2011.
Village Khatra No. Plot No. Area Kissam Sundara 13 149 517 A0.10 Patit”
He submits, the authorities then did not cause the allotment, for which his client had moved this Court earlier by writ petition. Same was disposed of with direction for his client’s representation to be considered. His client filed for contempt, pursuant to which impugned order dated 7th May, 2018 was made. His client was thereby directed to select another patch of government land, preferably in village area (outside the municipal area) and to submit proposal afresh.
He relies on sub-section (3) in section 3 of Odisha Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 to submit, after due inquiry there was approval for allotment in favour of his client, belonging to category under clause (e).
Mr. Rout, learned advocate, Additional Standing Counsel appears for the State and submits, counter has been filed. The District Industries Centre (DIC) had forwarded recommendation of allotment of the plot to petitioner but it falls within lands reserved for future requirements of Government and other public purposes. In the circumstances, the Tahsildar and thereafter the appellate authority correctly rejected petitioner’s representation for allotment of that particular plot. Petitioner has been told, he can choose a plot under the category of land reserved for setting up of small or medium scale industries. He submits, procedure has been followed as provided in rule 3(3) under Odisha Government Land Settlement Rules, 1983.
In facts and circumstances aforesaid, petitioner cannot be said to have a vested right to obtain allotment of the plot on strength of recommendation by the DIC. The industries department and the department dealing with allotment of land are separate departments, even though the Collector and District Magistrate had chaired the meeting on issuance of approval of petitioner’s application. This is what has caused petitioner to expect and assert claim for the allotment.
However, petitioner intends to set up a small industry, which is in line with stated policy of the State. In the circumstances, State is obliged to take forward its policy by allotting land, to enable establishment of a small scale industry going towards industrialization of the State.
In accepting contention of State we direct opposite party no.1, itself or through the office, duly authorized in that behalf, to inform petitioner of lands in or adjacent to Barbil Municipality that have been reserved for setting up small or medium scale industries. We clarify that detailed information of such reserved lands is to be given to petitioner, within three weeks of communication. Petitioner will have four weeks thereafter to take inspection and become aware of the situation, regarding available Government lands earmarked for purpose OF setting up small industries. Within that time petitioner can apply for allotment of a plot of choice, from those available.
The writ petition is disposed of.
…………………………