JUDGMENT
B.L. Hansaria, C.J.
1. The new capital for the State of Orissa was built at Bhubaneswar. Brisk construction work was taken up there requiring engagement of thousands of labourers. The said labour force came from different rural areas of the State and lived in different parts of Bhubaneswar. In course of time, a township grew and along with it grew a number of slums to accommodate such labourers. It is stated that by the end of 1977, 52 slums, came into existence with a population of over 50 thousands. These slum dwellers subsequently faced eviction on the plea of beautifying the city. The eviction was carried out from Madhusudan Nagar, Suka Vihar, Nayapalli, Sastri Nagar, Banadurga and Surya Nagar and that too in the year 1987 which was declared as the ‘International Year of Shelter for Homeless’. The real motive for such eviction, according to the petitioner, was. however, to allot the lands in the said areas to “people in power and their close associates in politics, bureaucracy, business, judiciary, journalism, etc.” It is also alleged that the slum dwellers were evicted unlawfully and forcibly from the plots of land which had been duly allotted to them. The further allegation is that the assurances given to these people to build up tenements for accommodating them elsewhere had not been fulfilled. The re settlement of these people at far off places affected their livelihood adversely. The petitioners desire protection of their rights and place reliance on what was held by the Supreme Court in the case of Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180.
2. In view of the serious allegations made by the petitioners a need for an independent enquiry was felt and with the consent of the parties, Shri S. K. Misra, the then Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal, was requested to look into the matter and submit his report to this Court. Shri Misra has done an admirable job and has submitted a detailed report. His conclusions are :
(i) Satyanagar and Malisahi from which eviction was made were not slums.
(ii) Most of the residents who were evicted from Satyanagar and Malisahi were not unauthorised occupants, inasmuch as they had been shifted from other areas and settled at Satyanagar and Malisahi on plots demarcated to them by the P & S Department of the State Government. Many of them had been given registered licences authorising them to construct their own houses on the plots demarcated to them and to continue in occupation of the same as long as they did not violate the terms of licence. None of the licences were ever revoked or cancelled.
(iii) Sastri Nagar, Madhusudan Nagar and Suka Vihar were slums which were in existence for long years.
(iv) The inhabitants of Satyanagar, Malisahi, Suka Vihar, Madhusudan Nagar and Sastri Nagar, mostly, were rickshaw-pullers, part time servants, masons, footpath vendors etc. and were rendering essential services to the residents of New Capital.
(v) The inhabitants of Satyanagar, Malisahi, Suka Vihar, Madhusudan Nagar and Sastri Nagar were forcibly evicted from the areas where they had been living and police force was used for their eviction.
(vi) The plea of the State Government that the unauthorised occupants of these areas including the residents of Satyanagar and Malisahi accepted the rehabilitation programme of the State Government and voluntarily abandoned their occupation and shifted to the new places offered to them is not true.
(vii) The eviction and shifting of the above persons to distant places for their rehabilitation adversely affected their right to life.
(viii) Though assurances were given to the aforesaid inhabitants of the areas mentioned above that they would be settled within the New Capital in the areas where they had been living or elsewhere and that colonies and tenements would be built for accommodating them and recommendations to that effect were made and decisions taken, such assurances were not fulfilled and decisions were not implemented and land within the New Capital which could have been provided to them were allotted to persons occupying high positions.
(ix) The allotment principles evolved by the State Government from time to time regulating the method of allotment of land in New Capital were relaxed in respect of a select group of persons like M. Ps, M.L.As, Ministers and other dignitaries.
(x) The eviction was carried out not in the public interest or any public purpose. The motive for eviction of the inhabitants of Satyanagar, Malisahi, Madhusudan Nagar and Nilakantha Nagar (popularly known as Sastri Nagar) was to make available lands in the said areas to rich, influential and high dignitaries”.
3. May it be stated that the enquiry was confined to the eviction of Inhabitants from Suka Vihar Madhusudan Nagar, Sastri Nagar, Satyanagar and Malisahi. We place on record our appreciation for the great labour and pain taken by Shri Misra in examining various aspects of the matter and in arriving at the aforesaid conclusions fearlessly and judiciously.
4. The conclusions arrived at by Shri Misra have pained us. The highhandedness of the authorities is writ large on the face of the report in forcibly evicting the people from different slums. What is more agonising is that the eviction was carried out not in any public interest or for any public purpose the motive for eviction being to make available lands to rich, influential and high dignitaries. We cannot but deplore and decry such actions on the part of the authorities.
5. As. however, the eviction is a fait accompli and as we can-not reasonably ask for rehabilitation of the affected persons in Bhubaneswar town as not much Government land is left there for this purpose, we would, however, like the interests of the persons who were forcibly evicted and rehabilitated at far off places to be duly protected by settling with them permanently the land which is presently under their occupation. We would also like the Government to fulfil their assurances of building up low price tenements for them. For this purpose, a scheme shall be formulated most expeditiously and we are sure that the Government would not be found wanting in providing necessary fund for the same. This apart, we direct the Government to pay compensation @ Rs. 5000/-to each of the illegally evicted families.
6. We would also like to state that those persons of the lower strata who are still occupying lands at Bhubaneswar would not be evicted except by following the due procedure of law. In this connection the requirements of Section 91 of the Orissa Development Authorities Act, 1982 and the relevant provisions of the Orissa (Prevention of Land Encroachment) Act, 1972 would be duly borne in mind.
7. We have still another observation to make. The same is that as it has come to light that many highly placed persons were allotted lands in violation of the rules, norms and Regulations, a committee would be set up by the Government to look into this aspect of the matter and if it would be found that any allotment had been made illegally, steps would be taken to cancel the allotment after following the requirements of law in this regard.
8. The petitions are disposed of with the aforesaid observations.
B.N. Dash, J.
I agree.