Badri N. Dash vs State and Others

Dr. A.K. Rath, J.—This is a public interest litigation. Challenge is made to the lease of an area of Ac. 33.50 decimals of land in village Indranipatna under Tangi-Choudwar Tahsil in the district of Cuttack by the Orissa Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation, opposite party no. 3, in favour of M/s. Toshali Cement Pvt. Ltd., opposite party no. 4, for setting up of a cement grinding unit.

The main grievance of the petitioner is that the leasehold area is a mountain. The village is protected by the said mountain. It is further asserted that if the cement industry is established in the village, it will cause environmental pollution.

Pursuant to issuance of notice, opposite parties 1 and 2 entered appearance and filed a counter affidavit. In paragraph-6 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that on 17.3.2005, the General Manager (P & A), IDCO, Bhubaneswar filed requisition for sanction of lease of Government land for industrial activities. Since the land in question was recorded under Rakhit Khata with Kissam-Unnat Jojana Jogya (Basti Jogya) as per record-of-right published in the year 1973-74, a case was initiated for its de-reservation. After maintaining all formalities, Collector, Cuttack approved de-reservation proposal allowing change of status of land. Thereafter, record-of-right was corrected. It is further asserted that after necessary correction in the record-of-right, Lease Case No. 113 of 2005 was processed and submitted to the Collector, Cuttack for sanction of land in favour of opposite party no. 3. The Collector, Cuttack accorded sanction of lease of Ac. 108.06 decimal of land of Mouza-Indranipatna subject to payment of premium, ground rent and cess as prescribed in Industrial Policy Resolution, 2001. In Paragraph-7, a specific stand was taken that neither there is any tree over the lease hold area nor it is an ancient mountain.

Opposite party no. 4, lessee, also filed a counter affidavit justifying the action of the IDCO in granting lease for establishment of cement grinding unit.

Though a rejoinder affidavit has been filed, there is no specific stand taken to the averments made in paragraphs-6 and 7 of the counter affidavit.

We have heard Mr. Achary, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R.K. Mohapatra, learned Government Advocate for the State and Mr. R.K. Rath, learned Senior Advocate for opposite party no. 4.

Mr. Achary, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the leasehold area is a mountain. The flora and fauna of the mountain will be destroyed by establishment of the industry. He further submits that there is a natural stream of water flowing from the said mountain and if the industry is established, it will affect the villagers. Mr. Achary further submits that the establishment of the industry will also cause environmental pollution.

We are not impressed with the said submissions of Mr. Achary. The specific stand of the Government of Orissa, opposite party nos. 1 and 2 that the leasehold area is not a mountain has not been controverted in the rejoinder affidavit. So far as environment pollution is concerned, the Pollution Control Board has already granted certificate in favour of opposite party no. 4 for establishment of the industry.

In view of the same, the writ application is dismissed.