MANGAL ORAM & ORS. versus STATE OF ORISSA & ANR.

Citation: [1977] 2 S.C.R. 666 · Decided: 20-01-1977 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HANS RAJ KHANNA · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

666 
A 
MANGAL ORAM & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF ORISSA & ANR. 
January 20, 1977 
B 
[H. R. KHANNA, R. S. SARKARIA AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.) 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
La_nd acquisition-Land acquired "for development of , industries 
namely 
est11b/ishment of a steel plant and allied and ancillary industries"-Establishing 
Rp!'rkela Steel Plant and a civil township around it, whether outside the defi-
nl/lon of word.s "development of industries" in ss. 2(c) and 3(1)-0rissa Deve-
lopment of lndustrie.J, Irrigation, Agriculture, Capital construction and resell/e-
ment of Displaced Persons (Land Acquisition) Act, 1948 (Orissa Act XVIII of 
1948) read with Notification dated 20-2-54. 
Section 2(c) of the Orissa Development of Industries, Irrigation, Agiicul-
ture; . ~pita! construction and 
Resettlement 
of 
Displaced 
persons" (Land 
Acqms1tlon) Act, 1948 (Act XVIII of 1948), defines development of industries 
to mean and include the construction of Hiralmnd Dam and other dams and 
reservoirs, Hydro Electric Projects and such other schemes or property as the 
State Government may by a notification specify in this behalf. By a notifica-
tion dated 20th Febl'l!ary, 1954 it was stated that "the project for the establish-
ment of a steel plant and allied and ancillary industry in the block of villages 
round about Rourkela 'hall be included within the meanin~ of the expression 
"development of industries" as defined in cl. ( c) of e. 2 of the Act. 
By notification dated 22nd February, 1954 and 9th February, 1955 82 sq. 
miles of land was acquired for the "development of industries, namely esta· 
blishment of steel plant and allied and ancillary industries". The above land 
vested absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances on the 
dates of the above notifications. 
The writ petitions filed by some ownern of 
some of the acquired lands challenging the validity of the acquisition were 
dismissed in limine. 
In appeal to this Court, the appellants contended (a) the State Government 
was not competent to acquire the land in question under the Act for the esta-
blishment of a steel plant as it cannot be said to be for the purpose of the 
development of industry; (b) the acquired land could ouly be used 
for the 
steel pl1mt and ancillary industries and not for a civil township; (c) the trans· 
fer of 3.21 acres of land by the Railway authorities long after 14 years of the 
acquisition to the Notified Area Committee for construction of taxi-stand, bus-
road etc. in and around the Railway Station is bad. 
Dismissing the appeals to this Court, 
HELD : ( 1) In the face of the notification dated 20th February, 1954 and 
s. 2(c) of the Orissa Development ?f Industry, Irrigation, Agiicu~tl!r.e, Capital 
Construction and Resettlement of D!Splaced Persons (Land Acqu1S1tlon) 
Act 
1948 the establishment of steel plant and ancillary industries at Rourkela 
answ'ers to the definition of development of industries as given in the Act. 
[668 G-HJ 
Clause ( c) of Section 2 confers wide powers on the State Government to 
notify any sche.me or projec~ as it .ma}'. consider appropriate for the devel_op-
ment of industnes and there IS nothmg m that clause that the scheme or pro1ect 
can be the subject matter of a notification must be similar to Hirakund Dam or 
other darns or reservoirs or hydro electric project3. [669 A-Bl 
H 
(2) The contention tha~ the acquired land ~uld ouly be. use~ for th~ steel 
plant and ancillary industr.1es and no~ for the CIVll 
t~wnsh1p ts 
de~o1d of 
force. 
A township is a necessary adiunct aJ!d concomitant of a big steel 
plant. The establishment of a steel plant necessarily postulates the constmc-
MANGAL ORAM v. ORISSA (Khanna, J.) 
667 
tion of residential quarters for the workmen, shopping areas, schools, hospitals, 
A 
post-offices etc. The fact therefore that part of the land which was acquired 
has been used for civil township would not affect the validity of the acquisi-
tion of the land. r 669 C-Dl 
(3) There is no principle of law by which a valid, compulsory acquisition 
stands void because long later the requiring authority diverts it to 
8. 
pubHo 
purpose other than the one stated in the declaration. In the instant CllSe, the 
transfer of 3.21 acres of the land by the Railways is to the Notified Area Com-
B 
mittee who is the appropriate body to construct and maintain the link roads, bus 
and taxi stands and shop surrounding the Railway Station. The land is 
not 
being used for a purpose extraneous from tha
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.