SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Ori) 107

S.K.MISHRA, SAVITRI RATHO
Biresh Chandra Naik – Appellant
Versus
State Of Odisha – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Dayanidhi Mishra, for the Appellant; Mr. Ashok Kumar Parija (Advocate General) and Mr. A.K. Nanda (Addl. Government Advocate), for the Respondent.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The PESA Act is held not applicable to the 1991 land acquisition under the L.A. Act for Deo Irrigation Project. (!) - The Forest Rights Act, 2006 is held not applicable since petitioners are not proven traditional forest dwellers or ST members. (!) - The RTFCATILA, RAR Act, 2013 applies to lapsing or continuation of L.A. proceedings, with award already made in 1998 and compensation paid by 2003; petitioners’ claim for higher compensation is rejected. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - The Orissa Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, 2006 is not found to violate prevailing law and is acknowledged as implemented for oustees; most other oustees have been rehabilitated or compensated. (!) (!) - The petitioners’ suppression of material facts regarding compensation and rehabilitation is noted and influences the judgment. (!) (!) (!) - The court emphasizes larger development interests and dismisses the petition for higher compensation. (!)

What is the applicability of the PESA Act to land acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 in 1991 for the Deo Irrigation Project?

What is the applicability of the Forest Rights Act, 2006 (and RTFCATILA, RAR Act, 2013) to the petitioners as land oustees in this case?

What is the validity of the Orissa Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, 2006 in light of prevailing law and RTFCATILA, RAR Act, 2013?


JUDGMENT

S.K. Mishra, J. - In this writ application, the petitioners, being the land oustees pray for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the opposite parties to extend the assured benefit to the petitioners in following Provisions of the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996, hereinafter called as PESA Act for brevity, by following the specific guidelines framed by the opposite party no.1 under the Orissa Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, 2006.

2. The petitioners claim that they are permanent residents of submerged area under the Deo Irrigation Project, Karanjia in the district of Mayurbhanj. They are agriculturists by profession. The immovable properties of the petitioners recorded in the record of rights have been acquired by the opposite parties for the purpose of Deo Irrigation Project. They also claimed that certain portion of their land is situated within the forest area. The petitioners, being the forest dwellers have maintained their families out of the forest products. The petitioners are identified as affected family and are coming under the submerged area of the Deo Irrigation Project. The opposite parties adopted a Rehabilitation and Resettlement

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top