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

2024 Supreme(Ori) 139

ORISSA HIGH COURT: CUTTACK 
B.R.SARANGI, G.SATAPATHY, J.
Kunjabana Patel – Appellant 
Versus 
Land Acquisition Collector, Sundargarh And Others – Respondent 
W.P.(C) No. 2345 of 2016 & W.P.(C) No. 2347 of 2016
Decided On : 12-04-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : M/s. Arabinda Tripathy And A.K. Beura, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Sibani Sankar Pradhan Addl Government Adv., M/s. Aditya N. Das, N. Sarkar, E.A. Das, A. Tiwari, Adv.

The court emphasized that individuals who construct homes on acquired land qualify as displaced families under the Odisha R&R Policy, reinforcing an expansive interpretation in favor of providing employment benefits.

Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Odisha Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy, 2006 - Petitioners claim entitlement to employment benefits under the R&R Policy as displaced families due to acquisition for N.T.P.C. Power Plant - Rejection based on alleged non-ancestral property and residence outside project area found unjustified - Definition of 'Displaced Family' emphasizes those residing in project area before notification. (Paras 3, 14, 18)

(B) Employment Benefits - The court reinforced the need to interpret beneficial policies broadly to favor displaced families, rejecting restrictive interpretations based on surmises. (Paras 7, 15)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners, having purchased land near the N.T.P.C. Plant site and constructed residential buildings, claimed benefits as displaced families under the R&R Policy after their lands were acquired without due consideration of their residential status.

Findings of Court:
The rejection of the petitioners' claims was deemed unfounded, directing authorities to provide employment benefits as stipulated in the R&R Policy due to their status as displaced families.

Issues: Whether petitioners are entitled to benefits as displaced families under the R&R Policy despite the authorities’ refusal based on their alleged non-residential claims at the site.

Ratio Decidendi: The interpretation of the R&R Policy must favor inclusion of displaced families that have constructed homes before acquisition notifications, emphasizing the policy's intention to assist such individuals.

Result: Writ petitions allowed, orders rejecting petitioners' claims quashed.

Table of Content
1. factual background concerning land acquisition issue (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments on entitlement to r&r benefits (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. court's analysis of the evidence presented (Para 6 , 7)
4. interpretation of beneficial legislation and the r&r policy (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
5. final ruling on the writ petitions (Para 19)

JUDGMENT :

B.R. SARANGI, J.

W.P.(C) No. 2345 of 2016 has been filed by one Kunjabana Patel with the following relief:-

“It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the writ petition and issue Rule NISI to the Opp. Parties to show cause as to

(1) Why the order of the Opp. Party No. 2 dt.04.08.2015 vide Annexure-9 will not be declared illegal and quashed, and

(2) Why the Opp. party No.1 &2 will not be directed to send the name of the Petitioner's family for employment under N.T.P.C. Power Plant as per R.R. Policy 2006.”

Similarly, W.P.(C) No. 2347 of 2016 has been filed by one Parameswar Patel with the following relief:-

“It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the writ petition and issue Rule NISI to the Opp. Parties to show cause as to

(1) Why the order of the Opp. Party No. 2 dt.04.08.2015 vide Annexure-9 will not be declared illegal and quashed, and

(2) Why the Opp. party No.1 & 2 will not be directed to send the name of the Petitioner's family for employment under N.T.P.C. Power Plant as per R.R. Policy 2006.”

Since both the writ petitions involve identical issue, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

2. For the sake of convenience and better appreciation, the factual matrix, as delineated in W.P.(C) No. 2345 of 2016, has been succinctly referred to.

2.1. Formerly, family of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 2345 of 2016 was a joint family. The petitioner decided to live separately from the joint family and purchased a piece of land from one Kutkuni Goud, by executing sale deed dated 06.10.2007, measuring Ac 0.03 dec. appertaining to Hal Plot No.3159/2, Khata No.70 of Mouza - Darlipali, PS- Bhasma in the district of Sundargarh to construct a residential house of his own. At the time of purchase, the petitioner had no knowledge regarding the survey of land for NTPC conducted in the year 2006. Though the land was “Goda” in kissam and the petitioner had purchased the said land for residential purpose, he filed an application before the Tahasildar, Lephripada to convert the said land to homestead and also deposited the money for conversion on 16.11.2007. But, in spite of the application for conversion of land, the Tahasildar, Lephripara did not take any steps for conversion of purchased land till 2012. Pending conversion of the land, he constructed a residential building over the said land. After construction of building, opposite party no.2 converted the said land as homestead in the year 2012. Accordingly, ROR was also issued by the Tahasildar, Lephripada. Prior to conversion of Kissam of the land, petitioner had constructed his residential house over that land and residing in that house.

2.2. The Government of Odisha in Gazette Notification No.8581 dated 29.02.2012 notified to acquire some land from Darlipali village for construction of N.T.P.C. Power Plant. The Land Acquisition Officer-cum- Tahasildar, Lephripada, accordingly, invited objections from the land owners by issuing notice U/s. 9(3)(4) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “L.A. Act, 1894”). The petitioner filed his objection and claimed for higher compensation of the residential building. After receipt of objections, the opposite party no.2 fixed the awarded amount, along with statutory amount, for acquired land and building. He further directed the land owners to give a declaration that they have taken all the household articles from their houses and demolished their houses by their own, prior to receipt the compensation. The petitioner, on 23.03.2015, filed his undertaking before the Land Acquisition Officer, Lephri

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 Back to top