Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 15647 of 2017
In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India.
-----------
Prasant Kumar Behera ........ Petitioner
AFR Versus
State of Odisha and others ......... Opp. Parties
For petitioners : M/s S. Mohanty, D. Sethi,
S. Pattnaik and A. Dash,
Advocates.
For opp. parties : Mr. B.P. Pradhan,
Addl. Government Advocate
---------------
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VINEET SARAN AND THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DECIDED ON : 13.10.2017
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- VINEET SARAN, CJ., The petitioners, who are the local residents of village Bidyadharpur, have filed this application in the nature of Public Interest Litigation seeking direction for cancellation of lease granted in favour of "Sri Sri Ravishankar University Trust" on the ground that the trust is misusing the land by violating the terms 2 of the lease and consequentially the government is losing huge revenue towards lease premium and that the trust has acquired excess land beyond the lease area.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that "Sri Sri Ravishankar University Trust" approached the Government to take some land on lease for the purpose of education by establishing a University. Consequentially, for establishment of Sri Sri Ravishankar University in Odisha by law and to confer the status of University thereon and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto, the legislature of the State of Odisha in the 60th year of the Republic of India enacted an Act called "The Sri Sri University Act, 2009" which received assent of the Governor on 01.12.2009 and was published in the official gazettee on 26.12.2009 and known as Orissa Act 18 of 2009. For establishment of such University, application for grant of lease land was submitted and accordingly the Government decided to grant lease of land for the interest of students who will get free and qualitative education. Accordingly, Lease Cases No.1(R)/2007, 2(R)/2007 and 3(R)/2007 were initiated before the Tahasildar, Baranga, who, on consideration of such applications, issued RoR in the name of opposite party no.7 relating to Khata 3 No.94-D1 of area 105 acres, Khata No.2-D1 of area 32 acres, and Khata No.19-D1 of area 48 acres, in total 185 acres, indicating the lease cases respectively and fixed 1% ground rent and 75% cess in respect of the lease land. As per 1% ground rent the lease holder was to pay per year a sum of Rs.57,32,451/- in respect of area 105 acres, Rs.64,380/- in respect of 32 acres and Rs.3,01,313/- in respect of 48 acres in total Rs.60,98,144/-. But subsequently, the said ground rent was reduced from 1% to 0.25% and fixed the rent of Rs.14, 33, 112.75. Similarly, cess of Rs.26,67,937.25 per annum was determined.
2.1 The lease holder-opposite party no.7 has not been paying the rent as fixed since last 10 years, causing huge loss to the Government, as well as the public. Further, the lease holder has failed to use the lease land for which purpose it was acquired. As per the Memorandum of Understanding dated 12.12.2006, executed between the Government of Odisha, Higher Education Department and opposite party no.7, the trustee was to set up Multi Disciplinary University in a phased manner to accommodate 15,000 students and 155 faculty members. More than 12 disciplines were to be set up in the University and more than 10 number research centres were to be opened. For this purpose the 4 lease holder required 200 acres of land for which the Government had agreed to provide the land. More so, the MoU was valid for a period of 3 years and it was to be extended if necessary and on that basis further mutual agreement was to be made between the parties. Though such MoU has expired on 12.12.2009, the same has not been extended.
2.2 At the time of granting of lease there was strong protest by the villagers, including the petitioners, as such lease was going to affect their day to day life, as the lease hold land was basically used for grazing of cows and goats, the collection of minor forest produce, seasonal cultivation in periphery area of Pahad and also used for communal functions and open play ground. Over the lease land the villagers and petitioners were approaching to the main road for their convenience, which was shortest route. The grievance of the villagers was considered and consequently a meeting was held on 08.12.2010 between the villagers and opposite party no.8 in presence of District Magistrate, Cuttack and local representatives of Cuttack and Banki and decisions were taken to provide certain facilities to the villagers. In compliance of the said decision, no action has been taken. The petitioners claim for cancellation of lease and to set up 5 Government Offices, medical, schools etc. on the lease land which will be beneficial to the periphery villages. Hence this application.
3. Mr. S. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously urged that the lands which have been granted to opposite parties no.7 and 8 on lease, having not achieved the objectives and there being gross violation of the conditions of discussion held on 08.12.2010 and the Government has been loosing its revenue for the last 10 years and more so the MoU executed on 12.12.2006 (which was to be extended after three years), having been expired on 12.12.2009, has not been extended further, there is every justifiable reason to cancel the lease. Therefore, the petitioners, being the local villagers, have filed this public interest litigation seeking aforesaid relief.
4. Per contra, Mr. B.P. Pradhan, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State opposite parties contended that if opposite parties no.7 and 8 have not paid their dues admissible to the Government as per the terms of the lease deed, it is the Government which will take action and not the petitioners. So far as implementation of the decision taken in the meeting held on 08.12.2010 is concerned, the aggrieved party has to approach the appropriate authority instead of filing the instant 6 application. He thus contended that the instant writ petition filed by the petitioners is in the form of a private interest litigation but not public interest litigation, and as such is liable to be dismissed.
5. We have heard Mr. S. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. B.P. Pradhan, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State opposite parties and perused the records.
6. Undisputedly, for establishment of "Sri Sri University", by way of legislation the Sri Sri University Act, 2009 has been enacted. For the purpose of establishment of such institution, 185 acres of land has been allotted on consideration of lease application filed by opposite party no.7. The said lease was granted by following due procedure of law. As per terms and conditions of the lease deed, opposite parties no.7 and 8 are liable to pay the ground rent, as well as cess mentioned therein. If such amount has not been paid, as alleged in this application, it is open to the authority, which is aggrieved thereby, to approach the appropriate forum for realization of said amount, but the petitioners have no locus standi to raise such question, that too in the shape of a public interest litigation. In the name of 7 "protector" of the property of the Government, the petitioners cannot and could not approach this Court by filing this public interest litigation.
7. In Chhetriya Pardushan Mukti Sangharsh Samkiti v. State of U.P., 1990(4) SCC 449 the apex Court held as follows:
"A public interest litigation was initiated alleging environmental pollution caused by a factory exposing the population to health hazards and life risk. After closely examining the facts, circumstances and nature of allegations in the light of long history of enmity it was found that Public Interest Litigation was a result of rivalry between the petitioners and factory owners. Prima facie too there was compliance with Air Pollution Control Act. Hence, it was held that there was no contravention of fundamental right. Petition creating bottleneck in the Court amounted to abuse of legal process and the Court must protect the society from the so-called "protectors". The application was found to be legally devoid of any merit or principles of public interest and public protection.
Sabyasachi Mukherjee, C.J., observed:
"While it is the duty of this Court to enforce fundamental rights, it is also the duty of this Court to ensure that this weapon under Article 32 should not be misused or permitted to be misused creating a bottleneck in the superior Court preventing other genuine violation of fundamental rights being considered by the Court."
8. In Ramasharan Autyanuprasi v. Union of India 1989 Supp (1) SCC 251, the apex Court observed as follows:
"A Public Interest Litigation was filed concerning mismanagement of a public trust (museum continuing priceless articles) run by the Chairman of Sawai Man Singh II Museum Trust. The petitioners relying on Articles 49 and 51-A(f) called upon State to protect the museum by replacing 8 Chairman. Meanwhile disputes and litigation were going on between the petitioners and respondents. It was held by the Supreme Court that the petition does not seek to advance any public right. Invocation of jurisdiction of Supreme Court as a Public Interest Litigation in the background of allegations was wholly unjustified. Public Interest Litigation does not mean settling disputes between individual parties. It is imperative to lay down clear guidelines and outline the correct parameters for entertaining Public Interest Litigation petitions."
9. In view of law discussed above, it is made clear that it is the duty of the Court to enforce fundamental rights and also it is the duty of the Court to ensure that the weapon under Article 226 should not be exercised and should not be permitted to be misused, creating a bottleneck for any development work to be undertaken. In the present case, since by enactment of legislation the University has been established, if there is contravention of any provision of lease deed so executed, it is the appropriate authority to take action but not the petitioners by way of filing public interest litigation. It is not understood as to how the petitioners would be directly or indirectly affected by such acquisition which has been validly done more than a decade back and it is admitted by the petitioners that the University has been established. Therefore, the public interest litigation jurisdiction should not be utilized for hampering the progress and development work. The purpose for which the land was given to 9 the opposite parties no.7 and 8 is being admittedly fulfilled by establishing the University in a phased manner. It is not the duty of the Court to go into the various technical details in the case of this kind. Therefore, the jurisdiction of this Court should not be utilized for personal interest, as has been attempted to be done in the present case.
10. Consequentially, we do not entertain this application, which is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost.
Sd/-
(VINEET SARAN) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
(DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 13th October, 2017, GDS/Ashok/Alok True copy P.A.