{"id":104097,"date":"2010-09-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-rutuparna-mohanty-vs-2-on-15-september-2010"},"modified":"2014-08-16T08:15:13","modified_gmt":"2014-08-16T02:45:13","slug":"mrs-rutuparna-mohanty-vs-2-on-15-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-rutuparna-mohanty-vs-2-on-15-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"Mrs. Rutuparna Mohanty vs 2 on 15 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Orissa High Court<\/div>\n
Mrs. Rutuparna Mohanty vs 2 on 15 September, 2010<\/div>\n
              W.P.(C) Nos. 11667 and 12723 of 2010\n\nIn the matter of applications under Articles 226 & 227 of the\nConstitution of India.\n\n                              -------------\n<\/pre>\n
W.P.(C) No.11667\/2010<\/p>\n
Mrs. Rutuparna Mohanty,
\nManaging Trustee, Maa Ghar
\nFoundation & 43 others               ………                  Petitioner<\/p>\n
                                    Versus<\/p>\n
State of Orissa and others.         ……..                  Opp.parties<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No. 12723\/2010<\/p>\n
Basti Unnayan Mahasangha
\nrepresented by its General
\nSecretary and others.               ……..                  Petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
                                    Versus<\/p>\n
State of Orissa and others.         ……..                 Opp.parties.\n<\/p>\n
           For petitioner:          Mr.Karunakar Jena (WPC 11667\/10).\n<\/p>\n
                                    M\/s Asim Amitav Das,
\n                                         M.B.Ray, A.K.Behera,
\n                                         K.K.Rout, B.K.Panda, B.Sahu
\n                                         and S.Ray (WPC 12723\/10).\n<\/p>\n
           For opp.parties:         Mr. Asok Mohanty, Advocate General
\n                                         for State
\n                                    M\/s.S.K.Nayak (I), A.C.Baral and
\n                                        D.Nayak for O.P.No.2,
\n                                        Assistant Solicitor General for
\n                                        Union of India.\n<\/p>\n
                                    M\/s.Umesh Ch. Patnaik,
\n                                        S.Patnaik,
\n                                        A.J.Mohanty,
\n                                    M\/s.P.K.Jena, N.Panda, and
\n                                        D.P.Mohapatra,
\n                                    M\/s.Kshirod Kumar Rout,
\n                                        T.K.Nayak and J.Naik
\n                                        (For Intervenors)
\n                                      -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
        P R E S E N T:\n<\/p>\n
                    THE HONOURABLE MR. CHIEF JUSTICE V. GOPALA GOWDA
\n                                            AND
\n                         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE I.MAHANTY<\/p>\n
                           Date of Judgment-        15.9.2010<\/p>\n
V.GOPALA GOWDA, CJ.        These two petitions were heard together by consent
\n        of the learned counsel for the parties and are disposed of by the
\n        following order.<\/p>\n
        2.                 On 6.7.2010 one Mrs. Rutupurna Mohanty on behalf
\n        of Sanjibani Maa Ghar submitted a petition signed by number of
\n        persons who claimed to have been evicted from the premises of
\n        S.C.B.Medical College and Hospital campus in open Court which was
\n        treated as a Public Interest Litigation and Mr.K.K.Jena, learned counsel
\n        was appointed as amicus curiae to appear on behalf of the petitioner
\n        and the evictees with a direction to the High Court Legal Service
\n        Committee to provide all necessary assistance including financial to
\n        him as may be permissible under the rules. This Court also directed
\n        the District Administration represented through the Collector to make
\n        temporary arrangement for their shelter by erecting tents at any place
\n        which is available within his jurisdiction and supply the food to them.
\n        Thereafter, the amicus curiae counsel filed a detailed petition on
\n        9.7.2010 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India
\n        narrating certain relevant facts for grant of the following reliefs :\n<\/p>\n
                       a. To provide immediate shelter to the evicted persons;
\n                       b. To provide cooked food thrice a day, minimum two
\n                           weeks till other arrangement is made by the opposite
\n                           party to resettle them any where in the town;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                       c. To provide education facilities to school going children
\n        particularly effect (effort) should be made for their continuation of the
\n        study in the respective school in which they are studying;\n<\/p>\n
                               -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
               d.   To provide baby food to the infants and special diet
\nto the old and ailing people;\n<\/p>\n
               e.   To provide free medical treatment to the victims who
\nare injured and ill;\n<\/p>\n
               f.   To   provide    all   household      articles   which   were
\ndestroyed by the police and administrative officers during the eviction;\n<\/p>\n
               g.   To direct the State Government to conduct a judicial
\ninquiry relating to the excess action of the police and lapses of the
\ndistrict administration and direct the State Government to take action
\naccordingly;\n<\/p>\n
               h.   To direct the State Government to formulate scheme
\nand   an   independent     committee      to   provide    alternative   site   or
\naccommodation to the displaced slum dwellers;\n<\/p>\n
               i. Government may be directed to pursue earnestly the
\n“Low Income Scheme Shelter Progrramme” which is to be undertaken
\nwith the aid of World Bank;\n<\/p>\n
               j.   To direct the State Government to provide the Slum
\nUpgradation Programme (SUP) under which basic amenities are to be
\ngiven to the slum dwellers.”\n<\/p>\n
urging various legal contentions in support of the said reliefs.\n<\/p>\n
3.             It is pertinent to state certain relevant facts which are
\nhighlighted in the said petition, namely, that on 4.7.2010 in the early
\nmorning at about 4 a.m. more than four platoons of police force came
\nto the spot without any prior notice to the inhabitants of the Basti and
\nstarted demolishing their houses by using bulldozer etc. During the
\ncourse of eviction process, they ransacked the entire basti and the
\nhouses and thrown the household articles including food stuffs and
\nbooks of the school going children to the drain and ultimately those
\nwere put to fire including the thatched house and articles of the
\naforesaid inhabitants. When the aforesaid action of the police was
\nobjected to by the inhabitants, the police started pelting stones and
\n                              -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
resorted to lathi charge in an inhuman manner. It is further stated that
\ndue to the overt act of the police, hundreds of people including old
\nmen and women, children, infants, pregnant women got severe injury
\nand are still suffering without any proper care and medication. It is
\nfurther stated that the inhabitants of the locality were living in the said
\narea more than about three generations with the knowledge of all
\nauthorities including the district administration. Number of BPL Cards
\nand Voter Identity Cards were issued in their favour by the appropriate
\nauthority since long. It is further stated that the children of the said
\nbasti are prosecuting their studies in the nearby Government school
\nand Government was also pleased to establish an Anganwadi Centre in
\nthe said Basti for the purpose of imparting education to their children
\nand for providing nutrition. CESU, the electricity distribution company
\nand before it OSEB provided electricity connection to the inhabitants of
\nthe Basti. Tube-wells were installed by the Government for providing
\ndrinking water to the inhabitants of the Basti. Neither any notice was
\nissued to the inhabitants to vacate the place at any time nor any
\nscheme for their resettlement was prepared prior to eviction. Further
\ncase of the inhabitants is that the eviction was made during rainy
\nseason and houses were demolished when it was raining heavily in
\nCuttack town as a result of which the evicted persons had to take
\nshelter on the road side under the open sky exposed to rain and
\nsunshine. It is stated by them that due to the aforesaid inhuman
\nactivity of the police, the infants, children and adult girls, women and
\nold age people suffered the most. It is further stated that the district
\nadministration was callous and nobody extended their helping hand to
\nprovide food, shelter and health care to the victims. They remained
\nday and night without food, patients without medicines and children
\nwithout food and care. While demolishing the houses, the police
\nmisbehaved the ladies by using unparliamentary language which was
\nnot expected from responsible police force and administrative officers.\n<\/p>\n
                             -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
The belongings of the inhabitants including BPL Card, Voter ID Cards,
\nvarious certificates and important documents were burnt during the
\neviction. The affected people are spending their lives without any food
\nand shelter and they are deprived of their rights to live in a
\ndignified\/descent manner in the society which is their fundamental
\nrights enshrined in the Constitution. With the aforesaid narration of
\nfacts, they have sought for the reliefs as mentioned earlier.\n<\/p>\n
4.           During the pendency of the petition, a second writ
\npetition was filed by the Basti Unnayan Mahasangha represented by
\nthe Secretary Ajit Kumar Lenka narrating more or less the same facts
\nwhich are not required to be adverted to in this judgment as it would
\namount to repetition.\n<\/p>\n
5.           Statement of counter was filed by the Collector, Cuttack
\njustifying the action to evict the evictees from the premises of the
\nS.C.B.Medical College Campus as they were trespassers into the
\nCollege premises even though they were evicted earlier. in the
\naffidavit filed by the Collector on 28.7.2010 he has stated at paragraph
\n3 that in compliance with the order dated 10.7.2009 passed by this
\nCourt in O.J.C.No. 6721 of 1999, eviction process was carried out in
\nthe   S.C.B.Medical   College   and   Hospital,   Cuttack.   Order    dated
\n10.7.2010 so far as relevant reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
             “Inspection report submitted by the Advocates
\n             Committee on S.C.B.Medical College Hospital
\n             sanitation and unauthorized encroachments.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  The Registry shall supply a copy of the report
\n             submitted by the Advocate’s Committee today to
\n             the learned Additional Government Advocate who
\n             shall supply copy thereof to the Health Secretary
\n             and the Works Secretary to enable them to offer
\n             their views\/suggestions on the aspects highlighted
\n             in the report and to overcome the problems
\n             indicated therein.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  It is alleged that there is large scale forcible
\n             encroachment of lands inside the campus of the
\n             S.C.B.Medical College Hospital. In our view, it is the
\n             first priority of the District Administration to see
\n                             -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
              that the unauthorized occupants are removed from
\n              the campus as early as possible and the campus is
\n              made free from unauthorized encroachment. Since
\n              we have constituted a committee headed by the
\n              R.D.C.(C.D.), we direct the R.D.C.(C.D.) to take
\n              steps for removal of the unauthorized occupants
\n              from the medical campus within a period of two
\n              months from today.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   Shri  P.R.Dash,    learned   Amicus    curiae,
\n              produced the letter dated 7.7.2009 of the Executive
\n              Engineer, P.H.D. to the Superintendent of
\n              S.C.B.Medical College Hospital, copy of which
\n              communicated to Shri Dash as well as to the
\n              Advocates’    Committee,      Learned     Additional
\n              Government Advocate shall expedite the matter
\n              with the concerned authorities.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
6.            It is further stated that eviction was carried out upon
\nreceipt of the requisition from Administrative Officer, S.C.B.Medical
\nCollege & Hospital, Cuttack in the prescribed G-Form and 153
\nencroachment cases were booked under the O.P.L.E.Act for eviction
\nfrom the encroached Government Plot No. 439 of area Ac.1.569 (P),
\ni.e. Ac.0.612 recorded in the name of Health Department. Accordingly
\nnotices were issued to the encroachers and orders of eviction were
\npassed. The eviction was effected by observing due process of law on
\n4.7.2010.   Consequent    upon    the   eviction   effected   on   4.7.2010
\nimmediately temporary shelters at Mundamuhan High School and
\nPrabha Devi Women’s College at the outskirts of Cuttack were
\narranged for accommodation of 500 persons and out of the same 21
\nevicted persons went there and they were provided with food, shelter
\nand medical treatment. Further 60 Polythene sheets, one quintal of
\nrice, 20 Kgs of Harad Dal were provided to the evicted persons. On
\n5.7.2010, no evicted persons came forward to avail the facility
\nprovided for temporary shelter. On 6.7.2010 pursuant to the order of
\nthis Court, temporary shelter was immediately made at Ranihat High
\nSchool.     He has also stated about the steps taken by him in
\ncoordination with the Municipal Corporation for giving food and shelter
\n                              -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
to the evictees through the volunteers nominated by the petitioners. It
\nis further stated in his affidavit that pursuant to the order dated
\n18.7.2010, the evicted families were shifted to Hadia Patha and all
\nsuch facilities which were extended earlier to the evicted families were
\nextended to them till the date of filing of affidavit. It is further stated
\nby him that since the place does not have proper lighting, a generator
\nset has been pressed into service for which the District Administration
\nis paying a sum of Rs.30,000.00 towards the hire charges. That apart
\nCuttack Municipal Corporation has been providing the evicted families
\nwith food three times a day and approximately 500 persons are
\navailing the said fooding facilities for the last three weeks as on the
\ndate of swearing the affidavit. Further he has referred to the relevant
\nprovision of Orissa Relief Code, Clause 165, which reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
              “165. Emergent Relief:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              (1)   When people are in acute distress due to a severe
\n                    natural calamity like high flood or strong cyclone, it
\n                    becomes impossible for them to procure food; their
\n                    belongings are washed away and houses damaged,
\n                    it becomes necessary for Government to provide
\n                    them with dry or cooked food, clothing, shelter and
\n                    other necessaries of life. These articles are
\n                    generally transported to the affected areas by
\n                    waterways      as   road    communications      stand
\n                    disrupted. Air dropping is also made if the people
\n                    are marooned for days together. This kind of relief
\n                    is categorized as Emergent Relief.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              (2)   Emergent relief is sanctioned irrespective of the
\n                    consideration of status, caste or religion as at such
\n                    a juncture the haves and the have-nots are leveled
\n                    down to the same position.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              (3)   Emergent relief may include distribution of Chuda,
\n                    Mudhi, Gur, Salt, Kerosene, Match boxes and other
\n                    bare necessaries of life, including cooked food and
\n                    clothing. It may include provision of improvised
\n                    shelter with timber, bamboos, tarpaulins, straw etc.
\n              (4)   In case non-official organizations come forward to
\n                    extend, emergent relief as is usually the case at the
\n                    time of a grave natural calamity, assistance from
\n                    Government to that extend may be temporarily
\n                    suspended.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                             -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
             (5)   For emergent relief rice, wheat, chuda, mudhi, ragi,
\n                   maize etc. may normally be sanctioned at the rate
\n                   of 500 grams per adult and 250 grams per child
\n                   below 12 years of age per day. The Collector is
\n                   competent to sanction such relief himself and can
\n                   delegate the powers of sanction to                 the
\n                   Subdivisional Officers to exercise the power in their
\n                   respective jurisdictions for a period of three days.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                         If this is found inadequate, the Revenue
\n                    Divisional Commissioner may extend the period of
\n                    distribution of gratuitous relief upto seven days.
\n                    The Member, Board of Revenue Special Relief
\n                    Commissioner can extend it upto a period of 15
\n                    days inclusive of the period of sanction by the
\n                    Subdivisional Officer, the Collector and the
\n                    Revenue Divisional Commissioner.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             (6)   No emergent relief shall ordinarily be given after 15
\n                   days of the abatement of a natural calamity
\n                   like flood or cyclone unless it is of a very
\n                   devastating nature. If absolutely necessary such
\n                   relief may be given even beyond the period of 15
\n                   days laid down in the preceding sub-section, only
\n                   after obtaining specific Government orders.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
He has further stated in paragraph 9 of the affidavit that pursuant to
\nthe order passed by this Court, the District Administration has made a
\nsurvey and has given a list of persons along with his affidavit dated
\n21.7.2010. It is stated that the 149 evicted persons cannot prima facie
\nbe said to be belonging to the lower strata of the society on the basis
\nof their annual family income. In support of his case, he has produced
\nthe list Annexure-A\/1. It is further stated that the evicted families are
\nnot properly disclosing their native address to the Tahsil Office,
\nCuttack to conduct further investigation. So far as the additional list
\nsupplied to the Tahasildar, Cuttack on 26.7.2010 is concerned, the
\nsaid list simply contains 90 names without any material evidence
\nindicating about their socio-economic status. Further he has sworn to
\nthe fact that it appears from the records of the Cuttack Municipal
\nCorporation that the Rehabilitation of Urban Slum Dwellers under the
\nIntegrated Housing Development Programme (IHSDP) does not cover
\n                                -9-<\/span><\/p>\n
the persons\/evicted families who are even otherwise earning more
\nthan Rs.15,000.00 as per survey report. It is further stated that
\nkeeping in mind the economic status of the evicted families and other
\nexigencies,    no   suitable   land   is   available   at   the   moment   for
\npermanently rehabilitating their families.\n<\/p>\n
7.            The Principal Secretary to the Government of Orissa,
\nUrban Development Department in his affidavit filed in this proceeding
\non 28.7.2010 has referred to the IHSDP Scheme which is a Central
\nGovernment sponsored Scheme. Under the said Scheme, State Level
\nCoordination Committee (SLCC) Meeting was held on 20.2.2010 under
\nthe Chairmanship of the Principal Secretary to Government, Housing &
\nUrban Development Department. In the said meeting it was decided to
\nrecommend the Detailed Project Reports on Integrated Housing &
\nSlum Development Programme Scheme of Cuttack, Phase-I and II on
\npriority basis for appraisal and sanction in the Central Sanctioning
\nCommittee. Accordingly, the said proposals were placed before the
\nCentral Sanctioning Committee of the Ministry of Housing & Urban
\nPoverty Alleviation, Government of India. He has stated in paragraph 3
\nof the counter statement that out of identified Slums in Cuttack
\nMunicipal Corporation Area, under Phase-I, ten slums, namely,
\nBalmikinagar Munda Sahi, Tulasipur Bauri Sahi, Pithapur Pana Sahi,
\nNima Sahi Pana Sahi, Puri Ghat Pana Sahi, Dolamundai Bauri Sahi,
\nLunia Sahi Pana Sahi,Muradkhan Patna, Balisahi Nuapada, Darga Patna
\nSabar Sahi were proposed to be included. Similarly under Phase II,
\ntwo Slums, namely, Andarpur and Tulasipur Tanla Sahi were also
\nproposed to be included under the Scheme. In the meantime, Phase-II
\nhad been sanctioned and funds released by the Government of India
\nwith a project cost of Rs.1698.67 lakhs.\n<\/p>\n
8.            Since Government of India allocation for the State under
\nthe said Scheme has already been sanctioned and no further amount
\nwas available for phase I, the sanction of Cuttack Phase I with 602\n<\/p>\n
                             – 10 –\n<\/p>\n
number of beneficiaries in 10 slums is still pending. On the other hand,
\nGovernment in Housing & Urban Development Department have
\nsubmitted before the High Court in W.P.(C) No.6859 of 2009 that after
\nreceipt of land from the Revenue Department, the Housing & Urban
\nDevelopment Department will take necessary steps to hand over the
\nsaid land to Cuttack Municipal Corporation, Cuttack which will give
\noccupancy right to the identified beneficiaries, i.e. 1025 number of
\nslum dwellers living in 11 number of unauthorized slums out of the 82
\nslums on government land selected under the Integrated Housing and
\nSlum Development Programme after construction of houses for them.
\nIt is further stated that Government of India in the Ministry of Housing
\nand Urban Poverty Alleviation is going to introduce a new Scheme, i.e.
\nRajiv Awas Yojana (RAY) for rehabilitation of the Slum dwellers for
\nwhich Cuttack City has been selected to be included under the
\nScheme. He has further stated that with reference to the provisions
\nmade under Article 243 W in 74th Constitution Amendment Act, the
\nOrissa   Municipal   Act   was   amended   vide   the   Orissa   Municipal
\n(Amendment) Act 1994 (Orissa Act 11 of 1994) adopting the 12 th
\nSchedule with the provision that, the Municipality shall have power
\nwith respect to the performance of functions and the implementation
\nof schemes, more particularly in relation to sl.nos.10 and 11 of the
\nsaid Schedule. As per the aforesaid constitutional amendment,
\nenjoining special responsibility to such Corporations to address the
\nburgeoning, complex and myriad of issues of urban life, separate
\nCorporation Law, namely, the Orissa Municipal Corporation Act, 2003
\nwas enacted comprising various Chapters including Chapter 21 under
\ncaption “Slum or, informal Settlement”. It is reported by the Cuttack
\nMunicipal Corporation that total number of slums identified within the
\nCuttack Municipal Corporation area are 257 out of which 82 Slums are
\non the Government land and rest 175 Slums are on the own land of
\nSlum dwellers. The total population of 257 identified Slums is 2,23,819\n<\/p>\n
                               – 11 –\n<\/p>\n
out of which the population of the 82 Slums on Government land is
\n42836. Rest 175 Slums are on their own land comprising 35082
\nhousehold families with a population of 1, 80,983.Orissa Municipal
\nCorporation Act provides for a policy for the Slum dwellers.\n<\/p>\n
9.            As per the provisions envisaged under section 485 of the
\nOrissa   Municipal    Corporation      Act,   Minimum   Basic   Services   of
\nInfrastructure like drinking water, drainage, road, sanitation, street
\nlight etc. are being provided to all these Slums. It is further stated that
\nrecently the Cuttack Municipal Corporation conducted survey of the
\nSlums through an NGO, namely, SPARC-UDRC and prepared a profile
\nof all the Slums. Cuttack Municipal Corporation has received funds
\nfrom     Government     for   conducting      Socio-economic    survey     for
\npreparation   of slum-household         and livelihood profile under the
\nScheme, i.e. Urban Statistics for HR and Assessment (USHA). For this
\npurpose, Cuttack Municipal Corporation has selected an NGO, namely,
\nSPARC-UDRC which has already made the slum profile to do the
\nsurvey work. Survey of infrastructure gaps in all the 257 Slums has
\nbeen completed basing on which Detailed Project Report (DPR) will be
\nprepared and submitted to Government of India for approval and
\nsanction of funds for infrastructure development in Slums. After
\nreceipt of funds, implementation of the project will be started. It is
\nfurther stated that IHSDP has provision for Slum up-gradation on the
\nprivate land of the poor Slum dwellers for resettlement in the Urban
\nArea. Besides this, Government may allot land to the Urban Local
\nBodies (ULBs) who would in turn use the land for construction of
\nhouses for the urban poor slum dwellers. These houses can be allotted
\nto them on occupancy right basis. Thus case of rehabilitation of the
\neligible Slum dwellers depends on allotment of the Government land to
\nthe Urban Local Bodies concerned and approval of the rehabilitation
\nproposal and sanction of required funds by Government of India under\n<\/p>\n
                             – 12 –\n<\/p>\n
the said Scheme. It is further stated that formulation of the Slum
\npolicy is under active consideration of the State Government.\n<\/p>\n
10.         The Commissioner, Cuttack Municipal Corporation has filed
\nfurther affidavit on 29.7.2010. At para-3 of the said affidavit, it is
\nstated that “Jaya Maa Mangala Sahi” on behalf of which the petitioner
\nhas filed the present writ petition is not in the list of the identified
\nslums numbering 257 out of which 82 slums are on the Government
\nland. Rest 175 slums are on the own land of slum dwellers. It is stated
\nthat as per the provision of Section 485 of the Orissa Municipal
\nCorporation Act, 2003, minimum basic services of infrastructure like
\ndrinking water, drainage, road, sanitation, street light etc. are being
\nprovided to all these identified slums. It is further stated that pursuant
\nto the direction given by this Court, temporary arrangement has been
\nmade at Hadiapatha for accommodation of the evictees by making the
\narea clean for their habitation and they have taken necessary steps for
\nproviding health, sanitation by spreading bleaching powder and
\ncleaning the area. It is further stated that Section 482 in Chapter XXI
\nof the Orissa Municipal Corporation Act provides that for the purpose
\nof “providing basic urban services” the Corporation may identify and
\ndemarcate in such manner as may be prescribed by the Rules. In the
\nabsence of Rules in this regard, certain identified slums have been
\ntaken up for rehabilitation by CMC under Government of India
\nScheme. Further as per the provision of section 486 of the Act, the
\nslum dwellers are being provided other facilities under the welfare
\nschemes of the Government, i.e. Old Age Pension, Subsidized Loans,
\nProvisions of Supplying of rice in different schemes etc. In so far as
\nrehabilitation of slum dwellers are concerned, it is stated that in
\nrespect of two identified slums, i.e. Andarpur and Tulasipur (Tanla
\nSahi), provisions for land allotment would be made from the Urban
\nDevelopment Department. In this regard communications have been
\nmade by the CMC to the concerned authorities, i.e. the State\n<\/p>\n
                             – 13 –\n<\/p>\n
Government as per Annexure-2\/A series. It is specifically stated that
\neviction of the evictees was done from the Government land within
\nS.C.B.Medical College Campus and not from the Municipal lands.\n<\/p>\n
11.           The Under Secretary, Ministry of Housing and Urban
\nPoverty Alleviation, Government of India, has filed an affidavit
\ntraversing the petition averments. It is stated therein that Cuttack
\ntown is covered under the IHSDP. Selection of the beneficiaries under
\nJNNURM is done by the concerned State Government\/Urban Local
\nBodies (ULB). Duration of the said JNNURM is 7 years, i.e. 2005-2012
\nand each State has been given a fixed allocation under BSUP and
\nIHSDP. The ACA allocation for Orissa is Rs.78.74 crore under BSUP and
\nRs.176.33 crore under IHSDP thus totaling Rs.255.07 crore under
\nthese   two    components   of   JNNURM.   It   is   further   stated   that
\nGovernment of India has sanctioned 6 projects with a total project cost
\nof Rs.74.62 crore out of which the share of the Central Government is
\nRs.54.18 crore for construction\/upgradation of 2508 Dwelling Units in
\n2 Mission Cities of Bhubaneswar and Puri under BSUP. Under IHSDP 32
\nprojects with a total project cost of Rs.284.67 crore comprising central
\nshare of Rs.191.88 crore for construction\/upgradation of 13049
\nDwelling Units in 29 cities\/towns have been sanctioned. The details of
\nBSUP and IHSDP projects have been given at Annexure-1. Further it is
\nstated that the total 7-year allocation of Rs.265.07 crore under BSUP
\nand IHSDP for the State of Orissa, opposite party no.4 has committed
\nRs.246.06 crore for BSUP and IHSDP projects and the minor balance
\nhas been kept for Administrative and other expenses (A&OE) and
\ncapacity building activities. Since no additional Central Allocation
\n(ACA) is left, further projects cannot be sanctioned for cities\/towns of
\nOrissa under JNNURM (BSUP & IHSDP).Against the committed ACA of
\nRs.246.06 crores, Rs.108.44 crore of ACA has been released to the
\nState. Therefore, Rs.140.00 crore is yet to be released. As far as the
\napproval and sanction is concerned, it is to mention that City\n<\/p>\n
                             – 14 –\n<\/p>\n
Development Plans (CDPs) and Detailed Project Reports (DPRs) duly
\napproved and sanctioned by the State Level Steering Committee
\n(SLSC) are considered by the Central Sanction and Monitoring
\nCommittee (CSMC) under BSUP and Central Sanctioning Committee
\n(CSC) for IHSDP at Government of India level for approval of projects
\nsubject to the signing of Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) by the
\nState   Government,    to   undertake   the   reforms   prescribed   under
\nJNNURM Guidelines. On approval of projects, first instalment is
\nreleased and the balance is to be released in instalments (total 4
\ninstalments for BSUP and 2 instalments for IHSDP) based on utilization
\nreported by State and progress of reforms. It is stated that during the
\ncurrent financial year (2010-2011), Rs.2357.60 crore and Rs.1015.43
\ncrore have been budgeted for BSUP and IHSDP respectively for all
\nStates\/U.Ts.. No state-wise allocation has yet been made. Further
\nrelease of funds to State of Orissa in Financial year 2010-11 would
\ndepend upon the utilization reported and progress on reforms by the
\nState. It is further stated that the Government of India has decided to
\nlaunch a new scheme called Rajiv Awas Yojana for slum dwellers and
\nthe urban poor. Rajiv Awas Yojana (RAY) would extend support to
\nStates that are willing to assign property rights to people living in slum
\nareas for provision of shelter and basic infrastructure and civil
\namenities in slums. While finalization of RAY is underway, a scheme
\ncalled “Slumfree City Planning” for carrying preparatory activities
\nunder RAY has been launched with a budget of Rs.120 crore. A sum of
\nRs.60 crore has been released to State Governments and Union
\nTerritories in March, 2010 to assist them in undertaking preparatory
\nactivities for RAY such as slum survey, developing slum, MIS, GIS
\nmapping of slums, integration of GIS & MIS preparation of slum-free
\ncity plans. Rs.1.84 crore was released to Orissa. Under this Scheme
\nBudget allocation under RAY for the year 2010-2011 is Rs.1270.00
\ncrore. No state-wise allocation has been made under RAY and as\n<\/p>\n
                                – 15 –\n<\/p>\n
stated, the scheme is yet to be finalized. It is stated by him that the
\nCentral Government is providing funds in accordance with the
\nguidelines of Schemes to all State Governments including the State of
\nOrissa as per selection of town\/projects made by State Government
\nand within the allocation made by Planning Commission under the
\nJNNURM scheme for various States in the Country. Therefore, the
\ninstant writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
12.           With reference to the aforesaid factual aspects and the
\nrival legal contentions urged, the following questions would arise for
\nour consideration:\n<\/p>\n
        (1)        Whether the State Government is required to prepare
\n                   scheme for rehabilitation of the inhabitants of both
\n                   identified and unidentified slums in the State, more
\n                   particularly in Cuttack?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n        (2)        Whether the State Government and the CMC are\n                   required    to   provide    the   basic    amenities   to   the\n                   inhabitants      of   the   slums   like    drinking   water,\n<\/pre>\n
                   sanitation, medical health centre and schools for their
\n                   children?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        (3)        To what order?<\/p>\n
13.              The first point is answered in favour of the petitioner by
\nassigning the following reasons. For this purpose, it is necessary for us
\nto advert to Article 243 W which was inserted to Part IXA of the
\nConstitution by 74th Constitution Amendment Act, 1992 which came
\ninto force with effect from 1.6.1993. That provision has to be read
\nalong with the Entries 10 and 11 of the 12th Schedule which reads
\nthus:\n<\/p>\n
        “243-W. Powers, authority and responsibilities of Municipalities,
\n        etc- Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the Legislature
\n        of a State may, by law, endow-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        (a)             the Municipalities with such powers and authority
\n                        as may be necessary to enable them to function\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                  – 16 –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                          as institutions of self-government and such law
\n                          may contain provisions for the devolution of
\n                          powers and responsibilities upon Municipalities,
\n                          subject to such conditions as may be specified
\n                          therein, with respect to-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                          (i)       the preparation of plans for economic
\n                                    development and social justice;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                          (ii)      the performance of functions and the
\n                                    implementation of schemes as may be
\n                                    entrusted to them including those in
\n                                    relation to the matters listed in the
\n                                    Twelfth Schedule;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (b)                 the Committees with such powers and authority
\n                          as may be necessary to enable them to carry out
\n                          the    responsibilities  conferred   upon      them
\n                          including those in relation to the matters listed in
\n                          the Twelfth Schedule.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n\n             \"Twelfth Schedule\n             1.     ...       ...       ...     ...\n             2.     ...       ...       ...     ...\n             3.     ...       ...       ...     ...\n             4.     ...       ...       ...     ...\n             5.     ...       ...       ...     ...\n             6.     ...       ...       ...     ...\n             7.     ...       ...       ...     ...\n             8.     ...       ...       ...     ...\n             9.     ...       ...       ...     ...\n             10.    Slum improvement and upgradation.\n             11.    Urban poverty alleviation.\"\n<\/pre>\n
It is stated by the Principal Secretary in the affidavit that slum
\nimprovement and upgradation and urban poverty alleviation have been
\nincluded    after   the      Constitutional   amendment.     The    aforesaid
\nconstitutional amendment must be read along with Article 38 of the
\nDirective Principles of State Policy, which reads as under :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                             – 17 –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      “38. State to secure a social order for the promotion of
\n           welfare of the people- (1) The State shall strive to
\n           promote the welfare of the people by securing and
\n           protecting as effectively as it may a social order in
\n           which justice social, economic and political, shall
\n           inform all the institutions of the national life.
\n      (2) The State shall, in particular, strive to minimize the
\n           inequalities in income and endeavour to eliminate
\n           inequalities in status, facilities and opportunities, not
\n           only amongst individuals but also amongst groups of
\n           people residing in different areas or engaged in
\n           different vocations.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
14.         Article 39 clause (a) of the Constitution provides that the
\nState shall in particular direct its policy towards securing that the
\ncitizens, men and women equally, have the right to adequate means of
\nlivelihood. Article 46 of the Directive Principles of State Policy provides
\nthat the State shall promote with special care the educational and
\neconomic interests of the weaker sections of the people and in
\nparticular of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. These
\nprovisions must be read along with Article 19 (1)(e) and (g) i.e. the
\nright to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India and to
\npractice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or
\nbusiness. Articles 14, 19 and 21 are inter-related fundamental rights.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Those rights must be further inter-related to the aforesaid articles of
\nthe Directive Principles of the State Policy to ensure a meaningful and
\ndignified life to the citizens of the country including the inhabitants of
\nthe slums either identified or unidentified in the town and urban areas.
\nThis aspect of the matter fell for consideration before the Constitution
\nBench of the Apex Court in Olga Tellis and others v. Bombay Municipal
\nCorporation and others<\/a>, AIR 1986 SC 180, in which the Apex Court
\ninterpreted the aforesaid fundamental rights in the affirmative in
\nfavour of the inhabitants of the slums. At paragraph 32, the Apex
\nCourt in the said case has dealt with the reasons for the establishment
\nof slums in the towns and urban areas by stating that large number of
\nunemployed rural youths were forced to migrate from the rural India\n<\/p>\n
                            – 18 –\n<\/p>\n
in search of jobs to the urban areas. Therefore, they establish their
\nresidence in the slums in unhygienic condition whether they like it or
\nnot. In this regard it would be worthwhile to refer to paragraph 32 of
\nthe judgment wherein the Supreme Court has held after interpretation
\nof Article 21 of the Constitution that, “life includes livelihood”. The
\nrelevant portion of paragraph-32 is extracted below:-\n<\/p>\n
                         ” …….The sweep of the right to life
\n           conferred by Art.21 is wide and far reaching. It does
\n           not mean merely that life cannot be extinguished or
\n           taken away as, for example, by the imposition and
\n           execution of the death sentence, except according to
\n           procedure established by law. That is but one aspect
\n           of the right to life. An equally important facet of that
\n           right is the right to livelihood because, no person can
\n           live without the means of living, that is, the means of
\n           livelihood. If the right to livelihood is not treated as a
\n           part of the constitutional right to life, the easiest way
\n           of depriving a person of his right to life would be to
\n           deprive him of his means of livelihood to the point of
\n           abrogation. Such deprivation would not only denude
\n           the life of its effective content and meaningfulness but
\n           would make life impossible to live. And yet, such
\n           deprivation would not have to be in accordance with
\n           the procedure established by law, if the right to
\n           livelihood is not regarded as a part of the right to life.
\n           That which alone makes it possible to live, leave aside
\n           what makes life livable, must be deemed to be an
\n           integral component of the right to life.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It is also relevant to extract the observation made by the Apex Court
\nin paragraph-53 of the aforesaid judgment.\n<\/p>\n
                        “…..In other words, despite the finding
\n           recorded by us that the provision contained in Section
\n           314 of the B.M.C. Act is valid, pavement dwellers to
\n           whom census cards were given in 1976 must be given
\n           alternate pitches at Malavani though not as a condition
\n           precedent to the removal of encroachments
\n           committed by them. Secondly, slum dwellers who
\n           were censured and were given identity cards must be
\n           provided with alternate accommodation before they
\n           are evicted. There is a controversy between the
\n           petitioners and the State Government as to the extent
\n           of vacant land which is available for resettlement of\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                             – 19 –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            the inhabitants of pavements and slums. Whatever
\n            that may be, the highest priority must be accorded by
\n            the State Government to the resettlement of these
\n            unfortunate persons by allotting to them such land as
\n            the Govt. finds to be conveniently available. The
\n            Maharashtra Employment Guarantee Act, 1977 the
\n            Employment Guarantee Scheme, the ‘New Twenty
\n            Point     Socio-Economic     Programme.1982’,      the
\n            ‘Affordable Low Income Shelter Programme in Bombay
\n            Metropolitan Region’ and the ‘Programme of House
\n            Building for the economically weaker sections’ must
\n            not remain a dead letter as such schemes and
\n            programmes often do. Not only that, but more and
\n            more such programmes must be initiated if the theory
\n            of equal protection of laws has to take its rightful
\n            place in the struggle for equality. In these matters,
\n            the demand is not so much for less Government
\n            interference as for positive governmental action to
\n            provide equal treatment to neglected segments of
\n            society. The profound rhetoric of socialism must be
\n            translated into practice for the problems which
\n            confront the State are problems of human destiny.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Therefore, Article 19(1)(e) must be read along with Article 21 to give
\nthe proper interpretation and enforce the fundamental rights and
\nstatutory rights of the inhabitants of the slums in India. Article 14
\nenvisages that the State shall not deny to any person equality before
\nthe law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.
\nThis has provided a life-line for the people who are in economically
\ndisadvantaged position not having economic stability to have their own
\nsite or land purchased by investing large sums. For this purpose, the
\nState Government has been cast with a constitutional obligation under
\nPart III and Part IV of the Constitution. Therefore, the statutory
\nenactments like the Municipal Act, Municipal Corporation Act, Gram
\nPanchayat Act and the Development Authorities Act are enacted by the
\nState Legislature in exercise of their legislative power under Article
\n246 of the Constitution in order to discharge their constitutional and
\nstatutory obligations on the part of both the Union of India and the
\nState Government.\n<\/p>\n
                              – 20 –\n<\/p>\n
15.         If we carefully examine the object and intendment of the
\nParliament introducing Part IX and IXA by the 73rd and 74th
\nConstitution Amendment, it makes it very clear that it is to
\ndecentralize powers of the Central Government and State Government
\nto local self Governments like Panchayats and Municipalities who have
\nbeen constituted to give effect to the constitutional mandate by
\nrendering social justice to the socio-economically disadvantaged
\npersons which is a     basic feature of the constitution as envisaged in
\nthe Preamble of the Constitution. This intention of the Parliament could
\nbe gathered by a combined reading of the preamble of the Constitution
\nwherein the phrase ‘socialist secular’ was inserted by the 42 nd
\nConstitutional Amendment and thereafter correspondingly Article 38
\nwas suitably amended, to the effect that the ‘State shall strive to
\npromote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting as
\neffectively as it may a social order in which justice, social, economic
\nand political, shall inform all the institutions of the national life. By way
\nof the aforesaid 42nd Amendment, Section 39-A was inserted to render
\nsocial justice and free legal aid by the State in the operation of the
\nlegal system to promote justice on the basis of equal opportunity by
\nsuitable legislation or schemes and to ensure that opportunities for
\nsecuring justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or
\nother disabilities. This provision must be read keeping in view Articles
\n14 and 39 Clause (a) of the Constitution to achieve the object of
\nconstitutional amendment.\n<\/p>\n
            Therefore, Article 243W has got every relevance to the
\nfacts and circumstances of the present cases. This constitutional
\nobligation is rightly understood by the Central Government and the
\nState Government. Therefore, they have formulated different schemes
\nto see that Entry Nos.10 and 11 of the Twelfth Schedule are properly
\nimplemented in letter and spirit, to achieve the constitutional goal to
\nrender socio-economic justice to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled\n<\/p>\n
                            – 21 –\n<\/p>\n
Tribes and Weaker Sections of the Society. As interpreted by the
\nSupreme Court in Olga Tellis, persons who were living in the slums are
\nall considered as economically disadvantaged persons. Therefore, the
\nCentral Government has framed Schemes and Integrated Housing and
\nSlum Development Programme to provide basic services to the urban
\npoor under the JNNURM as well as RAY. In this regard we have
\nextensively referred to the stand of the Ministry of Housing and Urban
\nPoverty Alleviation Department in the affidavit of the Under Secretary
\nwith reference to the above said Scheme wherein it is stated that
\nduration of JNNURM is 7 years, i.e. 2005-2012 and that each State has
\nbeen given fixed allocation under BSUP & IHSDP Schemes and that
\nduring the current financial year 2010-2011, Rs.2357.60 crore and
\nRs.1015.43 crore respectively have been budgeted for BSUP and
\nIHSDP   schemes    which   would    clearly   indicate   that   the   Central
\nGovernment keeping in view the constitutional amendment to Article
\n39-A and the Directive Principles of the State Policy to discharge its
\nconstitutional obligation under Entry Nos. 10 and 11 of the Twelfth
\nSchedule formulated the aforesaid Schemes to render equal justice to
\nthe economically disadvantaged persons. Against the total 7-year
\nallocation of Rs.255.07 crore under BSUP and IHSDP for the State of
\nOrissa, Government of India has committed Rs.246.06 crore for BSUP
\nand IHSDP projects. It has also sanctioned 6 projects with a total
\nproject cost of Rs.74.62 crore out of which the share of the Central
\nGovernment is Rs.54.18 crore. In the affidavit of the Under Secretary,
\nit has been further stated that a sum of Rs.106.44 crore has been
\nreleased to the State out of Rs.245.06 and the said amount has been
\nallocated to Orissa State to be spent in various cities as mentioned at
\nAnnexure-I. In that allocation, Cuttack City Corporation is also
\nincluded at page 2. It is also further stated by him that on approval of
\nthe projects, first instalment is released and the balance amount will
\nbe released in four instalments for BSUP and two instalments for\n<\/p>\n
                               – 22 –\n<\/p>\n
IHSDP based on utilization reported by State and progress reforms. In
\nso far as the budget allocation for the financial year 2010-2011 is
\nconcerned, Rs.2357.60 crore and Rs.1015.43 crore for BSUP and
\nIHSDP respectively have been budgeted for all States\/U.Ts. but no
\nState-wise allocation has been made. So far as release of funds to
\nOrissa is concerned, it would depend upon utilization reported and
\nprogress on reforms by the State. Therefore, the State Government is
\nrequired to draw up its action plan to avail the benefit in this budget
\nallocation for the aforesaid financial year apart from the budgeted
\nRs.246.46 crores for the years 2005-2012 for alleviation of the poverty
\nof the urban poor under Part IXA of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
16.           The Principal Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban
\nDevelopment Department has elaborately stated in his affidavit
\nregarding the steps taken by the State Legislature to amend the Orissa
\nMunicipal Act,1950 adopting the Twelfth Schedule and enacted the
\nOrissa Municipal Corporation Act, 2003 to give effect to the object and
\nintendment of the Parliament as provided in Article 243 W read with
\nEntries 10 and 11 of the Twelfth Schedule including Chapter 21,
\nnamely,” Slum or, informal Settlement”. He has stated that there are
\n257 identified slums in the Cuttack Municipal Corporation area out of
\nwhich 82 slums are on Government land and the rest 175 slums are on
\nown land of the slum dwellers and has narrated in the narration of
\nfacts with regard to the Stand taken by the State Government that the
\ntotal number of inhabitants in the identified slums is 2,23,819 out of
\nwhich    82     slums    on     Government       land    comprising       8429
\nhouseholds\/families with population figures are furnished. Therefore,
\nthe State Government and the Cuttack Municipal Corporation have
\nindicated the fact that there are large number of slums and large
\nnumber of households\/families and inhabitants have been living in the
\nslums   in    Cuttack   Municipal      Corporation   area.   Therefore,    the
\nconstitutional provision referred to supra and the statutory provision in\n<\/p>\n
                              – 23 –\n<\/p>\n
Chapter 21 are required to be rigorously implemented by the State
\nGovernment through its local-self government, namely, Cuttack
\nMunicipal Corporation by availing the Central Government budget
\nallocation under the various schemes referred to supra and for such
\npurpose if the Government land is required, as stated at paragraph 7
\nof the Statement of Counter filed by the Principal Secretary, it is the
\nduty    of the   Cuttack   Municipal   Corporation   to   make    necessary
\nrequisition to the State Government seeking for allotment of ideal and
\nsuitable land for the purpose of using such land for rehabilitation of
\nslum dwellers by drawing up comprehensive development plan, as laid
\ndown by the Central Government and construct houses which can be
\nallotted to them on occupancy right basis on such terms and
\nconditions, so that their family members would exclusively enjoy such
\nresidential accommodation that would be provided under the Scheme.
\nFor this purpose, persons who have not been identified, it is the duty
\nof the Local-self Government along with the State Government to
\nconduct survey by spending the fund allotted by the Central
\nGovernment extracted above. It clearly appears that the CMC and its
\nofficers have restricted the survey, only to those persons living in
\n“identified slums”, clearly leaving out the persons who have been in
\nunauthorized occupation in slums, such as in the S.C.B.Medical College
\npremises who have been claiming in these petitions that they are slum
\ndwellers and required to be identified on the basis of the list furnished
\nby the petitioners as well as the Collector on the basis of their
\neconomic criteria. After conducting such enquiry, they have to be
\nidentified and for them, the aforesaid scheme for resettlement shall be
\nmade. For this purpose, the State Government shall ensure that the
\nproper comprehensive development plan is approved and the same is
\nimplemented with reference to the slum dwellers of both identified and
\nunidentified slums with a view to see that the schemes framed by the
\nState   Government     are   implemented     by   the     CMC    and   other\n<\/p>\n
                             – 24 –\n<\/p>\n
Corporations or Municipalities to have effective implementation of the
\nconstitutional provision of Part III, Part IV and Part IXA read with Entry
\nNos. 10 and 11 of Twelfth Schedule of the Constitution. For this
\npurpose, it would be necessary for us to give suitable direction to both
\nthe respondents, the Central Government, the State Government and
\nthe CMC and all other Local-self Governments, the Municipalities and
\nMunicipal Corporations in the Orissa State.\n<\/p>\n
17.           It is needless to mention here, as stated by the Principal
\nSecretary, Urban Development and the Commissioner, CMC, that the
\nstatutory duties under Chapter XXI of the Municipal Corporation Act
\nare to see that the basic minimum services and amenities are provided
\nto the identified slum areas. But no policy or guidelines have yet been
\nframed as per provisions under sections 497, 498 and 499 of the Act.
\nMunicipal Corporation     is required     to   take expeditious steps in
\nconsultation with the Government in Housing and Urban Development
\nDepartment for framing of guidelines and implementation of the same
\nwhich would facilitate discharge of statutory functions under Chapter
\nXXI. The CMC shall also take steps for protection of child rights and
\nprohibition of child labour as envisaged in Section 503 of the Act which
\nsays   that   the   Corporation   shall   be   an   active   partner   in   the
\nimplementation of the International Convention on Child Rights and
\nshall ensure that every child has access to a sufficient range of
\neducational and vocational training and shall discourage child labour
\nthrough the implementation of penalties and fines and also keeping in
\nview Article 21-A of the Constitution to provide free education to the
\nchildren up to High School level and effective monitoring and
\nevaluation of the same is required. The second point is also answered
\naccordingly in favour of the petitioners\/slum dwellers and their
\nchildren.\n<\/p>\n
18.            It is admitted by the Commissioner, CMC at para 5 of the
\nfurther affidavit filed on 29.7.2010 that for the purpose of providing\n<\/p>\n
                             – 25 –\n<\/p>\n
basic urban services under Section 482 in Chapter XXI of the Orissa
\nMunicipal Corporation Act, the Corporation may identify and demarcate
\nthe slum or informal settlement in such manner as may be prescribed
\nmeaning thereby prescribed by Rules but rules are not yet framed to
\nidentify the slums. However, it is stated by the State Government on
\nthe basis of information earlier furnished by the CMC that 257 slums
\nhave been identified.    But the Commissioner in his affidavit dated
\n29.7.2010 has stated that “Jaya Maa Mangala Sahi” is not in the list of
\nidentified slums numbering 257 which is without any criteria or basis.
\nTherefore, the State Government and the CMC shall include the
\nevictees from the aforesaid slum as identified slum dwellers for the
\npurpose of resettlement and rehabilitation.\n<\/p>\n
19.         For the reasons stated supra, we have no other alternative
\nthan to allow the writ petitions by issuing following directions to the
\nCentral Government, State Government, Cuttack Municipal Corporation
\nand other Corporations\/Municipalities in the entire State.\n<\/p>\n
            (1)   The   Central   Government   is   hereby   directed   to
\nreallocate funds under the different schemes on the basis of requisition
\nmade by the Orissa State Government for effective implementation of
\nthe schemes on the basis of the urgent need to rehabilitate and
\nresettle the inhabitants\/evictees of the various slums. For this
\npurpose, the State Government, Municipalities and the Municipal
\nCorporations in the entire State shall take effective necessary steps to
\nidentify the slums and slum dwellers\/inhabitants\/evictees for the
\npurpose of giving effect to the benefit under the Schemes framed by
\nthe Central Government and the schemes required to be framed by the
\nState Government and Urban Local Bodies.\n<\/p>\n
            (2) The State Government and the Urban Local Bodies in
\nthe entire State viz Municipalities and Municipal Corporations shall take
\neffective measure to draw up a Comprehensive Development Plan
\n(CDP) as envisaged under the provisions of the Orissa Municipal Act\n<\/p>\n
                             – 26 –\n<\/p>\n
and the Orissa Municipal Corporation Act, 2003 and also identify
\nappropriate land Government or private and if necessary acquire the
\nsame on the basis of the requirement for the purpose of construction
\nof   residential   apartments        to   rehabilitate\/resettle    the   slum
\ndwellers\/evictees in the entire State. It is also open for them to
\nidentify the urgent need and requirement to provide shelter by
\nconstructing residential apartments and make requisition to the
\nCentral Government to reallocate funds. The State Government for this
\npurpose shall ear-mark budget allocation to discharge its statutory
\nobligations as provided in both the statutory enactments and see that
\nthe schemes are implemented effectively as expeditiously as possible
\nby availing the budget allocation under the aforesaid two schemes for
\nthe years 2005-2012 after identifying the places in the entire State
\nand ensure that the schemes are implemented by sending utilization
\nreports and progress on reforms by the State in order to avail the
\nbenefit of the budget allocation already made and also yet to be made
\nfor the years 2010-11 and 2011-12.\n<\/p>\n
            The    aforesaid    directions     are   to    be     scrupulously
\nimplemented by the State Government by submitting periodical status
\nreport to avail the benefit of the scheme within the period specified,
\nand if the Court finds that the progress in this regard is unsatisfactory,
\nthis Court would view the matter seriously and take action against the
\nerring officials. The State Government is required to submit detailed
\nperiodical status report by every twelve weeks through the Principal
\nSecretary, Housing and Urban Development Department and the
\nRegistry is directed to place the matter for consideration from time to
\ntime.\n<\/p>\n
            With the disposal of the writ petitions, the interim order
\npassed earlier stands dissolved.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Orissa High Court Mrs. Rutuparna Mohanty vs 2 on 15 September, 2010 W.P.(C) Nos. 11667 and 12723 of 2010 In the matter of applications under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. ————- W.P.(C) No.11667\/2010 Mrs. Rutuparna Mohanty, Managing Trustee, Maa Ghar Foundation & 43 others ……… Petitioner Versus State of Orissa and […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,25],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-104097","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-orissa-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMrs. Rutuparna Mohanty vs 2 on 15 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-rutuparna-mohanty-vs-2-on-15-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mrs. Rutuparna Mohanty vs 2 on 15 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-rutuparna-mohanty-vs-2-on-15-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-08-16T02:45:13+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"41 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-rutuparna-mohanty-vs-2-on-15-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-rutuparna-mohanty-vs-2-on-15-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mrs. Rutuparna Mohanty vs 2 on 15 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-08-16T02:45:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-rutuparna-mohanty-vs-2-on-15-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":8084,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Orissa High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-rutuparna-mohanty-vs-2-on-15-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-rutuparna-mohanty-vs-2-on-15-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-rutuparna-mohanty-vs-2-on-15-september-2010\",\"name\":\"Mrs. Rutuparna Mohanty vs 2 on 15 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-08-16T02:45:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-rutuparna-mohanty-vs-2-on-15-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-rutuparna-mohanty-vs-2-on-15-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-rutuparna-mohanty-vs-2-on-15-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mrs. Rutuparna Mohanty vs 2 on 15 September, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mrs. Rutuparna Mohanty vs 2 on 15 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-rutuparna-mohanty-vs-2-on-15-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mrs. Rutuparna Mohanty vs 2 on 15 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-rutuparna-mohanty-vs-2-on-15-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-08-16T02:45:13+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"41 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-rutuparna-mohanty-vs-2-on-15-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-rutuparna-mohanty-vs-2-on-15-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mrs. Rutuparna Mohanty vs 2 on 15 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-08-16T02:45:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-rutuparna-mohanty-vs-2-on-15-september-2010"},"wordCount":8084,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Orissa High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-rutuparna-mohanty-vs-2-on-15-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-rutuparna-mohanty-vs-2-on-15-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-rutuparna-mohanty-vs-2-on-15-september-2010","name":"Mrs. Rutuparna Mohanty vs 2 on 15 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-08-16T02:45:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-rutuparna-mohanty-vs-2-on-15-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-rutuparna-mohanty-vs-2-on-15-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-rutuparna-mohanty-vs-2-on-15-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mrs. Rutuparna Mohanty vs 2 on 15 September, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/104097","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=104097"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/104097\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=104097"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=104097"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=104097"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}