Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
S.K.MISHRA, MISS SAVITRI RATHO, JJ.
Bhaskar Chandra Nath - Appellant
Versus
State of Orissa & others - Respondents
W.P.(C) Nos.29283 & 29284 of 2011
Decided on : 11-06-2021
Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Rehabilitation and Resettlement - High way land - Acquisition of Land and payment of compensation - Unauthorized occupation - Eviction - Seeking declaration as displaced persons under Clause 2(d) of the Orissa Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy, 2006 - Identification of displaced family.
Finding of the Court:
Land of both the Petitioners were by the side of the National Highway No.55 and, therefore, they are entitled to the Type-D Scheme for Urban Projects and Linear Projects. Both the Petitioners are entitled to homestead land @ 1/10th of an acre in rural area or 1/25th of an acre in urban area or cash equivalent. Since this aspect has not been considered, we hereby hold that a compensation of Rs.50,000/- is not adequate in this case. They are also entitled to house building assistance @ Rs.1,50,000/- from the date of Notification i.e. 15th December, 2006 and interest thereon @ 8% per annum till they are given the actual plot or cash equivalent and house building assistance. One member of the land holder is entitled to Rehabilitation employment as the entire house/homestead land is acquired by the Opposite Parties 1 to 5 and used by Opposite Party No.7.
Result: Petition allowed
JUDGMENT :
S.K.Mishra, J.
In these two Writ Petitions, the Petitioner-Bhaskar Ch. Nath in W.P(C) No.29283/2011 and Petitioner-Sudhakar Nath in W.P.(C) No.29284/2011, both are sons of Late Srinibas Nath, have prayed that they should be declared as displaced persons under Clause 2(d) of the Orissa Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the “RR Policy, 2006) dated 14th May, 2006 published in the Extraordinary Gazette on 15th May, 2006; and to provide them Rehabilitation and Resettlement Assistance and it served in the aforesaid Policy they are not to evict them till the Petitioners are admitted to Rehabilitation Assistance as envisaged.
2. The Petitioner-Bhaskar Ch. Nath has been recorded with Ac.0.07 dec. of land in Plot No.12/559 of Khata No.59/16 in Itap Mouza in the Odapada Block of Dhenkanal District. Similarly, the Petitioner-Sudhakar Nath has been recorded with Ac.0.06 dec. of land in Plot No.12/560 of Khata No.59/17 in Itap Mouza in Odapada Block in the district of Dhenkanal.
3. The relevant events in chronological are enumerated below:-
On 14th May, 2006, the State of Orissa adopted the RR Policy, 2006 known as Orissa Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy, 2006 on 15th May, 2006.
The aforesaid Policy was published in the Extraordinary Gazette on 15th May, 2006.The Government of Orissa vide a Gazette Notification dated 20th December, 2006 acquired the land for the purpose of Construction of Road and Bridge under the relevant provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In the mean time, the Petitioners have constructed residential house with the complete accommodation thereon and have planted trees including fruit bearing trees.
On 13.7.2007, the Petitioners were given notice that that the lands measuring areas of Ac.0.07 and Ac.0.06 decs. are being acquired and that they may file their show cause.
On 17.7.2007 the lands were recorded in their name by carving out Khata Nos.59/16 and 59/17.
On 12.2.2008, the Petitioner-Bhaskar Ch. Nath was noticed that he was entitled to Rs.11,07,056/-towards his compensation for acquisition of his land. Similarly, the Petitioner-Sudhakar Nath was noticed that he was entitled to Rs.11,36,378/-towards his compensation for acquisition of his land.
On 29.8.2011, the Executive Engineer, National Highway Division of Dhenkanal gave notice to both the Petitioners that they were in unauthorized occupation of Highway comprising of an area of Ac.126.72 SQM situated at K.M. 87/550 and an area of Ac.201.23 SQM situated at K.M. 87/600 by the side of N.H.42. They were asked to remove the same.
Though the Petitioners had submitted four representations i.e. on 07.9.2011, 8.9.2011, 29.10.2011 and 31.1.2012, it had no results. Hence, the Petitioners have filed these two Writ Petitions.
4. A Division Bench of this Court presided by the then Chief Justice of this Court on 08.11.2011 issued notices in both the cases and further directed that the Petitioners shall not be evicted from their residential building over the plot in question.
5. Opposite Party Nos.1 to 5 did not file any counter affidavit. However, Mr. A.K.Nanda, learned Addl. Government Advocate, argued that the Petitioner in both the cases are not the residents of village Itap and that they are unauthorisedly occupying the lands of the National Highway and that they have already received the compensation for that acquisition of lands and finally there are no materials on record that the entire lands owned by them have been acquired. So they are not entitled to any Rehabilitation or Resettlement. He also argued that the case comes squarely under the Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy, 2005.
6. The Opposite Party No.6-TATA Steel BSL Ltd. has filed their counter affidavit. Since there is no averment against Opposite Party No.6. and the Petitioners have
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
