JUDGMENT

By the Bench;

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Petitioner, in this writ petition, prays for a direction to set aside order dated 9th July, 2025 (Annexure-8), passed by the General Manager, Lingaraj Area, Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Angul, whereby, his claim for resettlement and rehabilitation under the provisions of Odisha Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy, 2006 (For brevity, ‘R&R Policy, 2006’) has been rejected.

3. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner’s land pertaining to plot No.119/1024 of Khata No.115/412 of Mauza-Balugaon Khamar under Talcher Tahasil in the district of Angul was acquired. The Petitioner was residing over the said plot by constructing his residential house. Thus, the Petitioner was considered to be a land displaced person under the category ‘A’. In addition to the compensation of Rs.18,748/- (rupees eighteen thousand seven hundred forty-eight only) for land acquisition and structure standing thereon, the Petitioner was also provided job in MCL under the R&R Policy, 2006 and continued in his service from 13th January, 2009 to 31st May, 2022. The Petitioner received the compensation. However, the Petitioner was not provided with alternative land or compensation in lieu thereof as per the provisions of R&R Policy, 2006. He made several representations to the MCL Authority, but to no effect.

3.1. Ultimately, the Petitioner moved before this Court in W.P.(C) No.6071 of 2025, which was disposed of vide order dated 6th March, 2025 with a direction to the General Manager, Lingaraj Area, Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Angul to take decision on the representation filed by the Petitioner for resettlement benefit under R&R Policy, 2006. Accordingly, the General Manager, Lingaraj Area, Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Angul took up his representation for consideration and rejected the same vide his order dated 9th July, 2025 (Annexure-8), which is under challenge in this writ petition.

4. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the representation of the Petitioner was rejected on the ground that the Petitioner is not a member of displaced family. It was also observed in the impugned order that he was not residing in the project area on the cut-off date, i.e., on 28th February, 2004. It is his submission that for acquisition of his land and structure (house) standing over the land acquired, the Petitioner was awarded compensation. Thus, it is apparent that the Petitioner had a house on his land, which was acquired. He, further, submits that the Voter List prepared on 31st January, 2004 (Annexure-10), clearly shows that the Petitioner was a voter of Balugaon Khamar, namely the project area.

4.1. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the Petitioner, however, could not give satisfactory reply to the query of this Court as to why he made an inordinate delay in raising his grievance for resettlement benefit under the R&R Policy, 2006. It is his submission that pursuant to the direction of this Court his representation was considered. Since, the Petitioner was held to be a displaced person under category “A” and was provided with a job by the Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, he should have been provided with the resettlement benefit under the R&R Policy, 2006 by providing alternative land or compensation in lieu thereof. It is his submission that delay should not stand on the way to get the legitimate claim of the Petitioner for acquisition of his land. In support of his submission Mr. Das, learned counsel for the Petitioner relies upon the case of Suresh Kumar Vrs. State of Haryana and others in SLP(C) No.670 of 2020, disposed of on 23rd April, 2025, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court after discussing several case laws, held as under:

“9. Implementing in letter and spirit, the observations made as above, i,e., a liberal approach in condonation of delay, we notice that this Court in quite a few judgments has condoned substantial delay. We may refer t