CUTTACK:The Orissa High Court has set a six-month deadline for the State government to take a policy decision on the grant of ownership right for land provided to persons under a government of India rehabilitation scheme for cashew plantation nearly 40 years ago.
The dispute over the land had reached the court in 2002 with six beneficiaries of the scheme seeking intervention against encroachment proceedings along with fine. The division bench of Chief Justice S Muralidhar and Justice RK Pattanaik said, “An interim order was passed in the petition way back on March 24, 2003 directing for maintaining status quo. As a result, for nearly 35 years now the petitioners have been on the land, cultivating it and enjoying the fruits of such cultivation. In the considered view of the Court, the State Government should seriously consider whether a fresh policy or scheme needs to be formulated recognising the possession of the Petitioners over the land in question for well over three decades.”
The State government claimed that the scheme floated in 1980 was only for a period of five years and due to passage of time, the petitioners’ right to enjoy the fruits “has also been ceased”. Moreover, the petitioners were conferred with ‘Dafayati’ right but not ownership right, the State government claimed in an affidavit.
The court said it is not clear from the affidavit filed whether the government requires the land in question for any specific public purpose. “If in fact there is no such supervening public purpose for which the land is required, then the government should seriously consider whether in all such cases, where the persons have been cultivating the land for well over three decades, a scheme can be formulated, which would be beneficial both to the persons undertaking such cultivation as well as the government,” the bench said in its June 23 order.
While directing the government to take a policy decision in any event, not later than February 1, 2023, the bench said, “Till such time the policy decision is taken, the status quo as ordered by the Court earlier vis-a-vis the Petitioners will continue.”