B.P.JEEVAN REDDY, M.M.PUNCHHI
Manbodhsa – Appellant
Versus
Government Of Orissa – Respondent
(1) THE application for impleadment is allowed.
(2) THE applicants are put in the same position as that of the writ petitioners whose petition was dismissed by the High court. They shall also be treated as special leave petitioners along with the actual special leave petitioners.
(3) SPECIAL leave granted.
(4) HEARD learned counsel.
(5) AS we find, it is difficult, on the present record to find any justification to upset the acquisition. However, the claim of the appellants to adequate compensation cannot be denied. The acquisition herein is for open cast coal mining. The surface of the earth involved thereat would obviously be destroyed and not remain fit for cultivation. The appellants claim themselves to be agriculturists. Their vocation would be disrupted. Rehabilitation for their purposes would be when they buy other land with the compensation they are likely to receive. The case of the appellants is that they were not aware of the acquisition proceedings though the Land Acquisition Collector has awarded compensation which lies deposited in court. We are satisfied on the present averments that the appellants were not aware both to the nature
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.