# MANGAL ORAM & ORS v. STATE OF ORISSA & ANR

- **Citation:** [1977] 2 S.C.R. 666
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1977-01-20
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 1730 of 1973
- **Bench:** H. R. Khanna, R. S. Sarkaria, Jaswant Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/mangal-oram-ors-v-state-of-orissa-anr-7092
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

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 definl/lon of word.s "development of industries" in ss. 2(c) and 3(1)-0rissa Development of lndustrie.J, Irrigation, Agriculture, Capital construction and resell/ement 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, Agiiculture; . ~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 notification dated 20th Febl'l!ary, 1954 it was stated that "the project for the establishment 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 establishment 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, busroad 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_opment 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 acquisition 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
tr

## Text

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 definl/lon of word.s "development of industries" in ss. 2(c) and 3(1)-0rissa Development of lndustrie.J, Irrigation, Agriculture, Capital construction and resell/ement 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, Agiiculture; . ~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 notification dated 20th Febl'l!ary, 1954 it was stated that "the project for the establishment 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 establishment 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, busroad 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_opment 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 acquisition 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 ComB
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 that for which the land was initially
acquired. [669 G-H, 670 A-Bl
Gulam Mu.rtafa & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [1976] 1 SCR 875
applied;
'
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 1237 and
C
~
1238/72.
From the Judgment and Order dated 8-11-71 of the Orissa High
Ceurt in O.J.C. Nos. 339 and 385 of 1968.
AND
Civil Appeal No. 1730 of 1973.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the
26th February, 1973 of the Orissa High Court in O.J.C. No. 130 of
1973.
D
Gobirul Das, (Mrs.) S. Bhandare, M. S.
Narasimhan,
A. K.
Mathur, A. K. Sharma and (Miss) Malini Paduval for the Appellants
E
in all the appeals.
D. P. Singh and G. S. Chatterjee for Respondent No. 1 in CAs.
1237-38/72.
Santosh Chatterjee and G. S. Chatterjee for Respondent No. 2 in
C.As. 1237-38/72.
B. Parthasarthi for Respondents 1, 3, and 4 in CA 1730/73.
L. N. Sinha, Sol. Gen. of India and Vinoo Bhagat for Respondent
7 in CA 1730/73.
Nemo for Respondents 2, 5, 6 in C.A. 1730/73.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KHANNA, J. This judgment would dispose of three civil appeals
Nos. 1237 and 1238 of 1972 and 1730 of 1973 against the judgment
of Orissa High Court. The first two appeals have been filed on certificate, while the third appeal has been filed by special leave.
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,
I
Capital Construction and Resettlement of Displaced Persons (Land
Acquisition) Act, 1948 (Orissa Act XVIII of
1948)
(hereinafter
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
668
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1977) 2 S.C.R.
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
wa.<i issued on Febmary 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 the petitions.
In appeal before us, Mr. Gobind Das on behalf of the appellants
has contended that the State Government was
not competent to
acquire the land in question under the Act for the establishment of a
·steel plant.
Our attention is invited in this connection to sub-section
(1) of section 3 of the Act which provides inter alia that whenever it
appears to the State Government that it is necessary or expedient to
acquire speedily any land for the purpose of the development of
industry, a notification to that effect shall be published in the gazette
stating the area and the boundaries of the land proposed to be acquired.
The argument of Mr. Gobind Das is that the acquisition of the
land for the establishment of a steel plant cannot be said to bG for the
purpose of the development of the industry.
It is not denied by the
learned counsel that a steel plant constitutes an industrial undertaking
and that the object of establishing a steel plant is not different from
the purpose of the development of the industry as ordinarily understood. It also cannot be disputed that Rourkela steel plant constitutes
a big milestone in the industrial development of the country. The
contention of Mr. Gobind Das, however, is that the words "development of industries" have a limited meaning as defined in the Act and
the establishment of a steel plant cannot be considered to be for development of industries.
The definition of "development of industries"
has been given in section 2(c) of the Act.
According to the definition, development of industries means and includes the construction of
the Hirakud Dam and other dams and reservoirs, Hydr0-Electric Projects and such other schemes or projects as the State Government may,
by notification from time to time, specify in this behalf.
We have
already mentioned above that the first notification for the acquisition
of land was issued on February 22, 1954. Two days before that notification, on February 20, 1954 the Governor of Orissa issued a notification in pursuance of clause ( c) of section 2 of the Act In that
notification, it was stated that the proiect for the establishment of a
steel μlant 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 "deve1
Iopment of industries'', as given in the Act.
We are unable to subs-
MANGAL ORAM V. ORISSA (Khanna, J.)
669
~ribe to the submission of Mr. Gobind Das that the scheme5 and proA
jects which could be the subject-matter of a notification under section
2(c) must be such as are similar to Hirakud Dam or other HydroElectric projects. Clause ( c) of section 2 confers wide powers on the
State Government to n~tjfy any scheme or project as it may ~sid~r
appropriate for the development of industries and we find nothing m
that clause that the scheme or project which can be the subject matter
of a notification must be one simifar to Hirakud Dam or other dams
B
or reservoirs or hydro-electric projects.
It is then argued by Mr. Gobind Das that part of the lands which
were acquired for the purpose of steel plant and ancillary industries
are being used as a civil township.
It is contended that the acquired
land could only be used for the steel plant and ancillary industries and
not for a civil township.
This contention is equally devoid of force.
The establishment of a steel plant n.ecessarily postulates the construction of 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 qua1iers 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 also 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 the land.
In civil appeal 1237 of 1972, Mr. Gobind Das has also advanced
an argument that possession of the land was not taken from the appellant.
We, however, 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 before u~.
Civil
appeal
1730 of
1973
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. The contention which
was advanced before the High Court and has been repeated before us
with a view to challenge the validity of the acquisition of this land is
that fourteen years after the acquisition of the land, the railway authorities for whom the land was acquired have transferred 3.21 acres of
land to the Notified Area Committee, Rourkela.
The above submission, in our opinion, is without merit.
According to 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
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
670
SUPREM!. COURT REPORTS
[1977] 2 S.C.R.
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.(') 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.
All the three appeals consequently fail and are dismissed but in
the circumstances without costs.
S.R.
Appeals dismissed.
(1) [1976] I S.C.R. 875.
\