ORDER
1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Addl. Government Advocate.
2. The dispute involves in this writ petition is that the petitioners were settled with Ac. 1.00 of land each from out of the lands found as ceiling surplus under the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 in mouza Bidanasi, Sadar Cuttack by virtue of orders passed on their respective applications. However, the said lands along with other lands were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by publication of notices under Sections 4 and 6 thereof. Appeals and revisions were filed against the orders by which the petitioners were settled with the said lands. Ultimately, the petitioners preferred various writ petitions individually before this Court and upon the writ petitions being allowed, the State of Orissa moved the Supreme Court in Civil Appeals against the orders passed in the writ petitions. The Supreme Court by its order dated 31.7.2003 allowed the Civil Appeals directing to take up the proceedings de novo and if the authorities concerned find the petitioners to be eligible for grant of lease, their case may also be considered in accordance with law along with other eligible persons.
3. As stated above, in the meanwhile, the lands have been acquired under the L.A. Act and the same has been transferred to the Cuttack Development Authority (for short ‘the C.D.A.’) for development of the land as a part of the “Abhinaba Bidanasi Project”.
4. Learned Counsel for the C.D.A. submits that since the land in question along with other properties have already been delivered to the C.D.A. which has already invested huge amount of money and has developed the said lands including construction of drainage system etc. it would be inequitable to allow the prayer of the petitioners by directing the C.D.A. to stop work on the land. He further submits that the land having now been included within the Cuttack Municipal Corporation, provisions of the O.L.R. Act will not be applicable to the said lands.
5. Learned Counsel for the State also advanced the arguments in support of the case of the C.D.A.
6. Be that as it may, since the Supreme Court has directed for de novo hearing of the case in respect of each of the petitioners, in our view, the said directions should be strictly complied with in its letter and spirit if the said cases have not yet been disposed of. The State may also examine if the petitioners can be accommodated in any suburb area of the city of Cuttack in the event their applications for lease in respect of the property in question are rejected. We are not inclined to accede to the prayer of the petitioners and pass any order of restraint against the C.D.A., at this stage.
7. The other contentions raised by Mr. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the C.D.A. that in each and every stage, till the case was taken up by the Apex Court individual cases were filed by each of the petitioners or against them and in this writ petition all the petitioners having joined together, the same suffers from mis-joinder of causes of action and the writ petition is not maintainable.
8. We also find from the records that separate applications were filed by the petitioners for which separate cases were initiated and even separate appeals were filed by the State before the Apex Court. The cause of action for each of the petitioners is also different which cannot be joined together.
9. Thus, we are not inclined to interfere with the matter and the writ petition stands dismissed with the observations made above.