Case: Mangal Oram &amp; Ors Vs. State Of Orissa &amp; Anr

We may first deal with civil appeals 1237 and 1238. On February 22, 1954 a notification was issued under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Orissa Development of Industries, Irrigation, Agriculture, Capital Construction and Resettlement of Displaced Persons (Land Acquisition) Act, 1948 (Orissa Act XVIII of 1948) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the Government of Orissa for the acquisition of 78 square miles of land for the "development of industries, namely, establishment of a steel plant and allied and ancillary industries". The steel plant mentioned in the notification subsequently came to be known as the Rourkela steel plant. Another notification was issued on February 9, 1955 for the acquisition of further four square miles of land for the above purpose. It may be mentioned that according to section 5 (1) of the Act, when a notice of acquisition is served or is published under section 4, the land shall vest absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances on the date the notice is served or published in the gazette. The appellants, who were owners of some of the acquired lands, filed writ petitions before the High Court challenging the validity of the acquisition. The High Court dismissed both thel 1730 of1973 arises out of writ petition to challenge the validity of a notification dated march 19, 1958 under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act for the acquisition of 31.06 acres of land for expansion of rail facilities to serve the steel plant at Rourkela. A writ petition to challenge this notification was filed on February 3, 1973.

Court's reasoning:
In that notification, it was stated that the project for the establishment of a steel plant and allied and ancillary industries in the block of villages round about Rourkela shall be included within the meaning of the expression "development of industries", as defined in clause (c) of section 2 of the Act. In the face of this notification, we are of the opinion that the establishment of the steel plant and ancillary industries at Rourkela should be held to answer to the definition of "development of industries", as given in the Act. We are unable to subscribe to the submission of Mr. Gobind Das that the schemes and projects which could be the subject-matter of a notification under section 2(c) must be such as are similar to Hirakud Dam or other Hydro Electric projects. Clause (c) of section 2 confers wide powers on the State Government to notify any scheme or project as it may consider appropriate for the development of industries and we find nothing in that clause that the scheme or project which can be the subject matter of a notification must be one similar to Hirakud Dam or other dams or reservoirs or hydro-electricestablishment of a steel plant necessarily postulates the construction o f residential quarters for the workmen to be employed in the plant. In addition to that, lands would be needed for shopping areas, for schools for the children of the employees, for play-grounds, for hospitals and for residential quarters of persons opening their shops catering to the needs of the employees of the steel plant. Lands would likewise be need for post offices, banks, clubs, parks, cinemas, roads, police stations as al so for cremation and burial of the dead. Land would also be needed for a variety of other purposes and civic amenities. A township is a necessary adjunct and concomitant of a big steel plant. The fact, therefore, that part of the land which was acquired has been used for civil township would not, in our opinion, affect the validity of the acquisition of thehowever, find that the judgment of the High Court shows that no such contention was advanced before the High Court when the writ petition giving rise to this appeal was argued. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to permit the appellant to raise this contention for the first time in appeal beforel 1730 ofto the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the above mentioned area is sought to be transferred to the Notified Area Committee because the Notified Area Committee is the appropriate body to construct and maintain the link road, bus and taxi stands and shops surrounding the railway station. The averments contained in the affidavit thus go to show that 3.21 acres of land is not being used for a purpose extraneous from that for which the land was initially acquired. Apart from that, we find that this Court has recently held in the case of Gulam Mustafa &Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (1) that there is no principle of law by which a valid, compulsory acquisition stands voided because long later the requiring authority diverts it to a public purpose other than the one stated in the declaration.