MILK PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION, ORISSA AND ORS. versus STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] 1 S.C.R. 1023 · Decided: 02-02-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
-· 
\ 
MILK PRODUCERS ASSOCJA TJON, ORISSA AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
ST A TE OF ORI SSA AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 2, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND P.K. BALASUBRMANY AN, JJ .] 
B 
I 
Encroachment of Government /and-Rehabilitation of encroacher-
Held: There does not exist any legal concept which confers a legal right 
upon encroacher to be rehabilitated-However, matter may be different where C 
the State comes out with a policy decision which meets the constitutional 
scheme as envisaged in Article 162 of the Constitution of India. 
Government lands-Encroachment by people carrying business in milk-
Rehabilitation scheme announced by Chief Minister-However, eviction 
sought without offer of alternative plot-Justification of-Held: The scheme D 
1 
. of rehabilitation was expressly resiled from-It was based on mistaken view 
that villages named therein were outside Master Plan, but as they were 
actually included therein, rehabilitation could not be carried out-Neither 
a policy decision was taken giving the encroachers a legal right nor any 
notification issued in terms of Article 162 of the Constitution-Further, an 
executive action of State had to give way to statutory scheme whiph prohibited E 
dairies/cowsheds within periphery of the town, and in this view, doctrine of 
Promissory Estoppe/ was also not applicable-It was immaterial that 
encroachers were willing to pay for alternative plot that may have been 
allotted to them in rehabilitation scheme and that by itself could not clbthe 
them with legal right to be rehabilitated-Orissa Municipal Corporation F 
Act, 2003. 
Appellants carried on business in milk on Government lands having 
encroached upon same in the capital of respondent-state. To evict them from 
those lands, Chief Minister of respondent state evolved a scheme allegedly 
for their rehabilitation. However, villages selected for rehabilitation were not G 
found suitable for same. As appellants were sought to be evicted without offer 
of alternative plots, they filed writ petitions challenging it. High Court held 
that rehabilitation could not be a condition precedent for eviction of appellants 
and respondent was entitled to proceed with same in accordance with law; 
1023 
H 
1024 
SUPREME COURT PEPORTS 
[2006] I S.C.R. 
A Hence the present appeal. 
Appellants contended that (i) policy dec!sion of respondent that on their 
eviction they would be rehabilitated should be adhered to especially it was not 
contended in counter-affidavit before High Court that the said decision had 
become unworkable; (ii) they were willing to move out of the state capital if 
B provided with alternative accommodation in terms of the rehabilitation scheme, 
and for that they were ready and willing to pay the market value for the plot 
which may be allotted. 
Respondents contended that (i) the Chief Minister has resiled from 
C earlier policy decision to rehabilitate appellants as that became impractical 
in view of fact that plots of lands in villages wherein the rehabilitation was to 
be carried on were found to be involved in litigation and within the Master 
Plan of 1982 of the state capital; (ii) in view of the amendments in the Orissa 
Municipal Corporation Act, 2003 it was impermissible to keep cattle within 
the state capital and therefore the appellants must vacate the lands possessed 
D bythem. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD I. Earlier policy decision was resiled from, though the decision 
to do so may not have been another policy decision. It was the Chief Minister 
E 
himself who thought of rehabilitating the members of the appellant in the year 
1994-95. Rightly or wrongly, the same has not been given effect to. The State 
furthermore proceeded on a mistaken notion that the villages named therein 
are outside the Master Plan and that the rehabilitation programme could be 
carried out in the said villages. The said villages, apart from being subjected 
F 
to encroachment and other litigations, being within the Master Plan of 
Bhubaneswar, no rehabilitation programme could be carried out. No policy 
decision has been taken which could give rise to a legal right in the appellants. 
No notification in terms of Article 162 of the Constitution of India had been 
issued. The assurance on behalf of the Government came from the note sheet 
approved by the Chief Minister and on the basis whereof the State took a stand 
G in its affidavit before the High Court Evidently, the matter has been considered 
afresh and the same had been brou

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.