Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Orissa High Court

Sukru Munda And Others vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 6 September, 2021

Author: B.P. Routray

Bench: B. P. Routray

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                    W.P.(C) No.2475 of 2014

             Sukru Munda and others                     ....         Petitioners
                                                       Mr.N.C. Jena, Advocate
                                           -versus-
             State of Odisha and others                   .... Opposite Parties
                                                          Mr.J. Katikia, A.G.A.

                         CORAM:
                         THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                         JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY

                                        ORDER

06.09.2021 Order No. B.P. Routray, J.

12. 1. The Petitioners are the villagers of Mushaposh, Katuridhua, Kantabahal and Bandhabhuin in the district of Sundargarh and have questioned the acquisition of lands for Rukura Irrigation Project by way of public Interest in the present writ petition.

2. The grievance of the Petitioners is that, the Government acquired lands for the irrigation project violating the provisions of the newly enacted Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred as "2013 Act") and even without following the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, 2006 (R&R Policy). Their further case is that the villages fall within the scheduled areas and governed by the provisions of the Panchayat Extension to Scheduled Areas (PESA) Act, 1996. But without the recommendation of Grama Sabha and approval of Tribal Page 1 of 4 Advisory Council, lands have been acquired illegally. Hence they have prayed to stop eviction and to initiate the process of acquisition afresh under 2013 Act.

3. The contentions of the Petitioners are seriously objected by the State-Opposite Parties. By filing a comprehensive counter, they have refuted all such allegations of the Petitioners by stating that the requirements under 2013 Act as well as Forest Rights Act, 2006 have been complied with.

4. It reveals from the record that cultivable command area of 5750 hectares for the irrigation project have got approval by the Central Water Commission (CWC), New Delhi and cleared by Tribal Advisory Council in its 55th meeting dated 27th August, 1993. The land acquisition process was initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LA Act) and Section 4(1) notification was made on 1st June, 2002, 8th May, 2002, 18th May, 2002, 9th May, 2002, 8th August, 2003, 6th August, 2003 for different villages concerning the project. Section 11(1) award in respect of villages, Katuridhua, Mushaposh, Kantabahal and Bandhabhuin were passed on 28th January, 2005, 22nd April, 2007, 6th May, 2004 and 24th December, 2004 respectively giving the award amount to each eligible persons. Further the rehabilitation assistance was also extended in respect of displaced eligible persons and thereafter only the possession was taken. It is specifically mentioned in the counter that possession in respect of village- Kantabahal was taken on 10th December, 2009, Mushaposh on 21st June, 2009, Kantabahal on 8th June, 2009 and Bandhabhuin Page 2 of 4 on 8th June, 2009 free from all encumbrances. A detailed list of the compensation granted to each eligible person for such acquisition of land has been appended at Annexure-C/6 to the counter affidavit. These specific averments of the Opposite Parties made in the counter affidavit have not been disputed by the Petitioners either by way of rejoinder or any additional affidavit.

5. The present writ petition has been filed on 7 th February, 2014, i.e. around 5 years after possession of the land was taken. The Petitioners have no explanation on their part for such delay in approaching the Court.

6. Admittedly, 2013 Act came into force with effect from 1st January, 2014 and when the facts are clear that not only possession of land was taken over much prior to that, but also the amount of compensation has already been paid and received by the eligible persons, no merit is found in the contention of the Petitioners for applicability of the provisions of 2013 Act.

7. So far the contention regarding applicability of PESA Act is concerned, it is the specific averment taken by the Opposite Parties in their counter affidavit that there was recommendation of the Grama Sabha dated 13th November, 2001, 29th December, 2001 and 15th November, 2001 for different villages affected in the project. This is not specifically disputed by the Petitioners in any manner. Therefore, their contention on this score is found without any merit and accordingly rejected.

8. For the reasons stated above, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter particularly at this belated stage and the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.

( B.P. Routray) Judge (Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice B.K. Barik Page 4 of 4