Orissa High Court
An Application Under Article 4 Of The ... vs General Manager on 24 September, 2025
Author: S.K. Sahoo
Bench: S.K. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA: CUTTACK
Writ Appeal No. 34 of 2015
An application under Article 4 of the Orissa High Court Order,
1948 read with Clause 10 of the Letters Patent Act, 1992 read
with Chapter III Rule 6 of the Rules of the High Court of Orissa,
1948.
----------------------
Gadadhara Biswal
and others ......... Appellants
-Versus-
General Manager,
Jagannath Area
Mahanadi Coal Fields
Ltd., Talcher,
Angul and another ......... Respondents
For Appellants: - Mr. S.P. Mishra
(Senior Advocate)
Mr. Soumya Mishra
Ms. Sakshi Rout
For Respondents: - Mr. K.M. Nataraj, A.S.G.I.
Mr. Pitambar Acharya
(Advocate General)
Mr. Rakesh Sharma
Mr. Soumyajit Pani
Mr. Debraj Mohanty
----------------------
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 1 of 135
P R E S E N T:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. MISHRA
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing: 10.09.2025 Date of Judgment: 24.09.2025
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.K. SAHOO, J. "All is well that ends well" is not just a play written
by William Shakespeare, the greatest English playwright but the
proverb which signifies that if the final outcome of a situation is
positive, then any previous struggles, setbacks, or difficulties are
considered unimportant.
This case portrays a legal battle between the two
parties which started much before 2004 when the homestead
and agricultural lands of the Appellants situated in village
Hensamul under Talcher Tahasil in Angul district were acquired
under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act,
1957 (hereinafter referred to as „CBA Act‟) and the Land
Acquisition Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as „LA Act‟) and
vested to the Central Government and divested in favour of
Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Talcher (hereinafter referred to as
„MCL‟).
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 2 of 135
The land losers are the Appellants who claimed that
in spite of acquisition of their lands, benefits under Odisha
Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy, 2006 (hereafter „R & R
Policy, 2006‟) were not provided to them fully by the
Respondents causing injustice to them, whereas the case of the
Respondents is that even though the Appellants have been
provided with benefits under R & R Policy, 2006, they are
creating trouble in not vacating the houses and homestead lands
in the acquired area.
The legal battle between the haves and have-nots
brings forth as to how economic inequality creates significant
barriers to justice for impoverished individuals and communities.
The Government formulates the policies to achieve the
constitutional goals set out in Part IV of the Constitution of India
in the form of Directive Principles of State Policies and an
attempt is made to bridge the gaps between the haves and
have-nots. Those who are charged with the duty of giving effect
to the policies of the Government must act in such a manner
which should not create frustration of such policies of the
Government.
This Court tried its best in the case in hand to see
that the financial barrier and power imbalances between the two
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 3 of 135
parties does not create hurdle on the path of the Appellants land
losers in getting their deserved constitutional and legal rights
and their right to life which includes right to livelihood, right to
shelter and right to healthy environment are protected.
Rehabilitation is meant only for those persons who
have been rendered destitute because of a loss of residence or
livelihood as a consequence of land acquisition. The primary
purpose of rehabilitation and resettlement is to improve the
social and economic conditions of family displaced by land
acquisition for development projects, ensuring that they achieve
at least a previous, or ideally better standard of living and
earning capacity post-dislocation. The authorities are legally
bound to explore the avenues of rehabilitation by way of
employment, housing, investment opportunities, and
identification of alternative lands.
2. In this writ appeal, 102 Appellants seek to set aside
the impugned judgment and order dated 13.01.2015 passed by
the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.21006 of
2014 in dismissing the writ petition filed by them and rejecting
their prayer for a direction to the Respondents not to take any
coercive action against them by evicting them from their
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 4 of 135
dwelling houses and/or by terminating their employment, till
they are physically allotted plots in the resettlement site.
The 102 Appellants along with two others filed the
writ petition with the following prayers:
"a. why the letter dated 31.07.2014 vide
Annexure-12 to the extent challenged in the writ
application, shall not be quashed;
b. why the Opp. parties shall not be directed to
reinstate the services of the Petitioners without
attachment and imposition of any conditions and
in accordance with letter dated 09.07.2014 of
the Sub-Collector, issued in terms with the
decisions taken in the meeting dated
06.07.2014;
c. why the Opp. parties shall not be directed not
to take any coercive action against the
Petitioners till they are allotted plots physically
in the resettlement site;
And in the event the Opp. parties fail to
show cause or show insufficient cause, the said
Rule be made absolute and
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 5 of 135
a. the letter dated 31.7.2014 vide Annexure-12
to the extent challenged in the writ application,
be quashed;
b. the Opp. Parties be directed to reinstate the
services of the Petitioners without attachment
and imposition of any conditions and in
accordance with letter dated 09.07.2014 of the
Sub-Collector, issued in terms with the decisions
taken in the meeting dated 06.07.2014;
c. the Opp. parties be directed to not take any
coercive action against the Petitioners till they
are allotted plot physically in the resettlement
site."
3. It is the case of the Appellants in the writ petition
that they are residents of village Hensamul (Talasahi), P.S.:-
Talcher Sadar in the district of Angul. The lands of the Appellants
were acquired in different phases both under the CBA Act and
the L.A. Act for the purpose of coal mining of Ananta OCP,
Bhubaneswari OCP and Lingaraj OCP of Mahanadi Coal Fields
limited. The lands were acquired in Hensamul village under the
land acquisition proceeding which started in the year 1987. As a
part of the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Schemes, on handing
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 6 of 135
over their respective agricultural lands situated in the village
Hensamul, the Appellants were appointed by the MCL Authority
in different phases. While the matter stood thus, the MCL
Authority issued notices on dated 12.07.2013, 13.07.2013,
14.07.2013, 12/14.07.2013 and 13/14.07.2013 to the residents
of Talasahi including the Appellants, placed within the village of
Hensamul to hand over the dwelling houses and vacate their
homestead lands for enabling the MCL Authority for
commencement of mining activities over the said area. On their
own statements, the Appellants had already handed over their
agricultural lands to the MCL Authorities. Even though notices
were issued for handing over the dwelling houses/residential
areas, but such notices were not acted upon following a decision
of the Authority to hold on the same and to proceed with the
same only after a tripartite meeting was held between the MCL
Management, the villagers and the authorities of the State of
Odisha. The Respondents had zeroed on the site at Mouza
Gurujang, without preparing the list of sites which would have
been feasible for the purpose of resettlement of the members of
displaced community. Mouza Gurujang was more than 25
kilometers away from the place where the Appellants were
residing and it would have caused manifest harassment to the
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 7 of 135
villagers, which was also contrary to the schemes of
rehabilitation and resettlement which required that lists of sites
for resettlement of members of displaced communities were to
be prepared after consulting the members before finalizing the
site.
It is the further case of the Appellants that they
challenged the action of the management in issuing notices of
handing over possession of their dwelling houses situated in
village Talasahi in W.P.(C) No.17257 of 2013. In the said writ
petition, the Appellants also challenged the action of the
Respondents in forcing them to either accept plots at the
Gurujang Resettlement site or to accept „Swarna Yojana Package‟
for resettlement. The Appellants prevailed over MCL in the above
regard owing to inconvenient location and lack of amenities and
the resettlement site. While the matter stood thus, the MCL
Authority, particularly the Project Officer, Ananta OCP issued
letters of termination against the Appellants on the ground of
failure to hand over the possession of their dwelling houses to
the Respondents. Challenging the aforesaid action of the
management, one Padmanava Biswal filed a writ petition before
this Court, which was registered as W.P.(C) No.9477 of 2014 and
this Court upon hearing the said matter on the question of
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 8 of 135
admission, by order dated 05.05.2015 passed an interim order
directing the Project Officer, Ananta OCP not to give effect to the
same till the next date. In the meanwhile, a meeting was held on
dated 06.07.2014 between the residents of village Hensamul and
the MCL Management on the issue of selection of resettlement
site as well as on the aspect of termination of the land outsees.
It was resolved to look for an alternate site other than Gurujang
and Balandapasi. The Appellants further contended that in the
said meeting, it was also resolved as follows:
"i. MCL authorities will reinstate the retrenched
employees by 10.07.2014. These will be no
break of service;
ii. Collector, Angul will be requested to convene
the meeting of the PLARC at the earliest to
discuss and finalize in principle the rehabilitation
site;
iii. The MCL will start taking measures towards
rendering the site from legal perspective;
iv. The MCL authorities will arrange interim
accommodation as will be decided by the PLRAC
after the site is finalized in principle and on
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 9 of 135
extension of such facilities, the villagers will
start vacating their homestead land."
It is the further case of the Appellants that in a
meeting held under the Chairmanship of Hon‟ble Minister,
Energy, Government of Odisha with CMD-MCL, Director
(Personal), MCL, Director (Technical), MCL in presence of MLA,
Talcher and the Principal Secretary, Energy Department on
16.07.2014, it was decided that the MCL authority was to
immediately issue letter of employment reinstating the displaced
household persons without attaching any pre-condition of
affidavit by the individual households. In the said meeting, it was
also resolved to write to the individual households regarding
allotment of lands in front of Balanda College for construction of
R & R Colony and to be allotted quarters in the residential colony
to accommodate the households till houses are constructed in
the R & R Colony. It is claimed by the Appellants that consequent
upon the development, the Appellants were issued with letters of
reinstatement in their services indicating that there shall be no
break in the service in respect of the Appellants. In addition to
such letters, the Appellants were also intimated to comply with
the agreed points as per the minutes of meeting held on
06.07.2014, subsequent letter dated 11.07.2014 of the Sub-
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 10 of 135
Collector, Talcher as well as minutes of meeting held on
16.07.2014, but at the same time, the MCL authorities
demanded handing over physical possession of the dwelling
houses in favour of the MCL latest by 31.10.2014. Pursuant to
above letters, the Appellants joined their services being
reinstated.
It is the further case of the Appellants that while the
matter stood thus, the Appellants were communicated with a
letter dated 31.07.2014 of General Manager, Jagannath Area
(Respondent no.1) indicating therein the following:
"i) Re-instatement all the terminated employees
without break in service & with immediate
effect;
ii) The villagers will not have to submit affidavit
for the same;
iii) MCL has already agreed for allotment of R &
R site situated in front of Balanda College as has
been decided in PLRRC meeting on 19.07.2014.
MCL will allot plot to the villagers at R & R site in
front of Balanda College duly decided by PLRRC
after obtaining clearance from Govt. of India
and diversion of forest if required. MCL
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 11 of 135
management has already initiated action before
the appropriate authority for allotment of the
plots;
iv) The villagers who are not having Company‟s
accommodation will be allotted Company‟s
quarters on priority basis and in minimum
possible time as decided in the Sub-Collector‟s
meeting on 06.07.2014;
v) MCL has also agreed to adjust the period of
absence due to termination from service with
payment of leave in credit of the individual.
It was also brought to the notice of the
Appellants that they were required to vacate
their dwelling houses and hand it over to MCL
for continuation of mining operation of
Bhubaneswari OCP latest by 31.10.2014."
The Appellants being aggrieved by the conditions as
narrated hereinabove approached this Court on the premises
that the conditions/terms in reinstating the Appellants were
unconditional and having reinstated the Appellants in service, the
authorities were not justified to impose the conditions as
contained in the letter dated 31.07.2014. The Appellants claimed
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 12 of 135
that conditions imposed in the said letter are illegal, arbitrary
and in colourable exercise of power and further runs contrary to
the time-to-time assurances given by the Company in different
meetings taken place. The Appellants claimed that the conditions
imposed by MCL authority defeated the assurances and
objectives of the resettlement and rehabilitation policy.
4. Counter affidavit was filed by the Respondents in the
writ petition wherein it is stated, inter alia, that the conditions
imposed in the letter dated 31.07.2014 has nothing to do with
the resettlement and rehabilitation of the Appellants. No action
of the MCL authorities was in contravention of the R & R Policy,
1989 or 2006. The lands in the village Hensamul being acquired,
the Appellants have no right to stay over the land and it would
delay in the allotment of land in favour of the Appellants as each
of them have been provided employment in the Company and
the Company is providing its own quarters for their
accommodation for the time being till the rehabilitation site is
made ready. Further as the Company is in urgent requirement of
mining in the locality, there is no illegality in issuing the
impugned letter to the appellants. The MCL authority also
contended that they were ready and willing to comply the
assurances in acquisition of the appellants land and as a major
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 13 of 135
part of compliance, apart from the acquisition
money/compensation, the Appellants were provided with the
employment in the Company, but for some technical reasons,
provision for allotment of land in favour of the Appellants for
their resettlement was getting delayed. However, keeping in
view the urgency with the Company and the inconvenience
caused to the land oustees as they would have to vacate their
residential houses, the Company has already earmarked
particular quarters inside the company premises to be allotted to
the land outsees till they were provided alternate sites and as
such the Appellants should not have any grievance in the matter.
It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the
Govt. of Odisha promulgated R & R Policy, 1989 for resettlement
and rehabilitation of the people whose agricultural and
homestead lands including houses were acquired/are to be
acquired. As per the R & R Policy, 1989, one committee was
formed i.e. Rehabilitation Advisory Committee (RAC), headed by
concerned Revenue Divisional Commissioner, which was re-
named as Rehabilitation and Periphery Development Advisory
Committee (in short "RPDAC" as per R & R Policy 2006) along
with a Sub-Committee namely Project Level Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Committee (in short "PLRRC") headed by Collector
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 14 of 135
of the District, who looks after the resettlement of the land
oustees and selection of resettlement site, which is made
available by the Government.
It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the
Respondents discussed with the Collector, Angul for providing a
site to resettle the land oustees of village Hensamul and Jilinda
whose lands were acquired including the houses and accordingly,
the Revenue Authorities of Angul district allotted around 45
Acres of land for resettlement site at village Gurujang. Number
of meetings were held by the A.D.M, Angul, and other Revenue
Officers with the villagers of Hensamul and Jilinda and the A.D.M,
Angul, vide its letter dt.19.4.2010 intimated that villagers of
Hensamul and Jilinda have agreed to shift to the resettlement
site at Gurujang.
It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the
Respondent No.1 on receipt of the confirmation letter
dt.19.10.2010 for resettlement site at Gurujang by the A.D.M.,
Angul for the land oustees of village Hensamul and Jilinda,
developed the resettlement site by making plots, roads,
electrification, school building, playground, pond, market
complex, temple and provision of water supply like deep bore
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 15 of 135
well with overhead tanks etc. by spending crores of rupees as
per the provisions of R & R Policy, 1989.
It is further stated in the counter affidavit that apart
from re-settlement policy for providing housing plots to the land
oustees, whose lands were acquired for coal mining purpose, on
a fully developed resettlement site, the Board of Director of MCL
in its 128th meeting held on 26.03.2011, promulgated "SWARNA
YOJANA" wherein it was decided to enhance the compensation,
house building assistance, maintenance allowance, allowance for
temporary shed, transport allowance along with special incentive
for early vacation and handing over vacant possession of home/
homestead land, agricultural land etc., for those land oustees
who were not interested in the resettlement plot provided by
MCL with the aid and assistance of State Government. The said
decision of the Board of Directors of MCL held on 26.3.2011 was
approved in the Company Level Joint Consultative Committee
(J.C.C.) meeting held on 03.04.2011.
It is further stated in the counter affidavit that after
the development of the resettlement site at Gurujang, the land
oustees of village Hensamul and Jilinda were asked either to
accept the homestead plot (10 decimals) at the resettlement site
at Gurujang or avail the SWARNA JYOJNA in lieu of the plot at
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 16 of 135
resettlement site. Many land oustees of both the villages
preferred to accept the homestead plots at the resettlement site
at Gurujang and some accepted the SWARNA JYOJNA.
It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the
Appellants who are some of the residents of village Hensamul
(Talasahi), even if were given appointments in MCL as per the R
& R Policy, 1989, refused to accept either the plots in the
resettlement site at Gurujang or avail SWARNA JYOJNA with a
plea that the resettlement site at village Gurujang is not
acceptable to them nor they are interested to avail SWARNA
JYOJNA, even though out of 285 families, 159 families have
availed the resettlement facilities. On such plea, the Appellants
refused to vacate the houses and homestead lands, which was
creating problem for the MCL authorities for operation of mining
of coal under Bhubaneswari OCP, by that process it was
becoming difficult to fulfill the target of coal production and to
provide coal to various power plants of the country.
It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the
permission has been granted by Ministry of Coal, Government of
India on dated 11.07.2013 for mining of 25 million tons of coal
from Bhbaneswari OCP, and this OCP is the biggest supplier of
coal to various power plants of the country. If the Appellants
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 17 of 135
would not vacate their homestead lands and houses
immediately, the progress of mining at Bhubaneswari OCP could
not be done and that the excavation of 25 million tons of coal
per annum could not be possible.
It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the
Respondents conducted various meetings with the Appellants for
handing over of their homestead lands along with houses, and
various notices were also served upon them for vacating the
same, but when the Appellants shown a deaf ear, termination
letter dt.05.05.2014 as per Annexure-5 was issued on the basis
of Clause-3 & 4 of the appointment letter. After termination of
the Appellants, the Appellants created various problems for
operation of Bhubaneswari OCP, by observing strikes and also
created law and order situation in the Area and accordingly, FIRs
were lodged against the Appellants and their leaders.
It is further stated in the counter affidavit that due to
the disturbance at Bhubaneswari OCP created by the Appellants,
the matter was brought to the notice of the district
administration for taking appropriate steps for smooth running of
the mining operation at Bhubaneswari OCP and accordingly a
meeting was held on 06.07.2014 in the chamber of the Sub-
Collector, Talcher in presence of the villagers and their leaders
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 18 of 135
along with the officials of MCL. In the said meeting, discussions
were made regarding the re-instatement of the Appellants in
their services and regarding re-selection of resettlement site.
The Appellants in the said meeting claimed that they would
accept the site in front of Balanda College, Talcher. In the said
meeting, it was decided that MCL authorities would reinstate the
retrenched employees without any break of service. It was
further decided that MCL authorities would arrange interim
accommodation as would be decided by the PLRRC after the site
was finalized in principle and on extension of such facilities, the
villagers would start vacating their homestead lands and houses.
It is further stated in the counter affidavit that as per
the decision taken by the Sub-Collector, Talcher, reinstatement
order was issued on 13.07.2014 with a condition that the
Appellants have to submit an affidavit as per the conditions of
the management of MCL, but the Appellants refused to give any
such affidavit and did not join in their service. Again another
meeting was held in the Chairmanship of Hon‟ble Minister of
Energy, Govt. of Odisha on dt.16.07.2014 in presence of C.M.D.,
Director (Personnel), Director (Technical), of MCL and M.L.A.,
Talcher, and it was decided that the MCL would immediately
issue order of reinstatement without attaching any pre-
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 19 of 135
conditions of filing affidavit and allocate quarters till houses were
constructed in the R & R Colony in front of Balanda College,
Talcher.
It is further stated in the counter affidavit a further
meeting was held on 31.07.2014 in the office of the Sub-
Collector, Talcher, wherein certain questions raised by the
Appellants, were discussed and it was decided that in principle,
the PLRRC had agreed the site in front of Balanda College in the
meeting held on 19.07.2014 and the MCL authorities will take
proactive action for obtaining clearance from MOEF with regard
to non-forest use for the said land. It was further decided that
there would be phased vacation from the site of dwelling i.e.,
houses and homestead lands at village Hensamul by 31.07.2014
subject to arrangement of interim accommodation by MCL. In
the said meeting, the residents of village Hensamul who were on
strike consented to call off the strike and co-operate with the
MCL Management in smooth operation of mine.
It is further stated in the counter affidavit that basing
upon the decision made in various meetings held with Sub-
Collector, Talcher on 06.07.2014 and 31.07.2014, as well as the
Minister of Energy, the Respondent No.1 issued a letter
dt.31.07.2014 to the Appellants individually accepting the
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 20 of 135
decisions made and requested them to join in service
immediately and vacate the houses and homestead land and
hand over it to MCL for continuation of mining operation of
Bhubaneswari OCP, latest by 31.10.2014.
It is further stated in the counter affidavit that
pursuant to the letter dt.31.07.2014, allotment of quarters to the
Appellants were issued on 15.9.2014, 23.9.2014 & 28.9.2014. In
spite of the allotment of quarters, neither the Appellants came
forward to occupy the quarters nor vacated their homestead
lands and houses, rather created problem for operation of the
mines. The Appellants through their family members and
relatives created problem and made dharna in the mines on
31.10.2014 and damaged some machineries in the mining site,
and the mining operation was hampered. This incident was
brought to the notice of the police by filing FIR on 01.11.2014.
It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the
conduct of the Appellants was derogative since they obstructed
the mining operation and damaged the machineries even after
the interim order was passed by this Court on 29.10.2014. Even
though the Respondents were co-operating with the Appellants
and the decisions of the State Authorities, it is not understood
what the intention of the Appellants was. According to the
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 21 of 135
Respondents, the Appellants were not interested to vacate their
homestead lands and houses, after getting the reinstatement
order dt.22.07.2014 and joining in the service on dt.30.07.2014.
It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the
due to the conduct of the Appellants, the MCL could not be able
to produce adequate quantity of coal and by that process, would
not be able to supply coal to various power plants of the country,
for which the power plants would not able to generate adequate
electricity and at large the public would suffer. If the Appellants
would not vacate the houses and homestead lands and stayed
there, their safety would be at a stake since the mining operation
of Bhubaneswari OCP, was going on adjacent to their houses.
Moreover, if they would not vacate their houses and homestead
lands, the mining operation would come to halt and by that
process, there would be loss of production and loss of revenue to
the Government and more importantly the public at large would
suffer.
5. Rejoinder affidavit was filed by the Appellants in the
writ petition to the counter affidavit, wherein it is stated, inter
alia, that the acceptance of the resettlement site at Gurujang
was not with relation to the area of the Appellants i.e. Talasahi in
the village of Hensamul. Village Hensamul consisted of three
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 22 of 135
parts namely, Talasahi, Saharasahi and Baidyasahi and in
relation to the villagers of Hensamul accepting the resettlement
site at Gurujang was never in connection with the villagers of
Talasahi. At no point of time, the land oustees of village
Hensamul (Talasahi) had accepted Gurujang as the site for the
purposes of their resettlement. As a matter of fact, the action of
the issuance of notices in favour of the Appellants and other land
oustees of the village regarding vacation of their respective
dwelling houses by the Respondents, was the subject matter of
challenge in a separate writ application, wherein the selection of
resettlement site at Gurujang by the Respondents without
consulting and discussing about the feasibility and workability of
the same with the members of the families who have been
displaced by virtue of the acquisition effected by the
Respondents in different phases was under challenge.
It is stated in the Rejoinder Affidavit that as per
Clause 8 of the R & R Policy, 2006, site of resettlement habitat
shall be selected by the RPDAC in consultation with the displaced
families. It is stated in the rejoinder affidavit that the acceptance
of the resettlement site at Gurujang by the Appellants and other
land oustees is incorrect as the finalization of the resettlement
site at the said place was made without any consultation with the
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 23 of 135
members of the land oustees and accordingly, unsustainable in
law as the same was done in contravention to the guidelines
issued under the R & R Policy, 2006.
It is further stated in the rejoinder affidavit that
when the resettlement site at Gurujang was decided by the
Respondents without consultation and discussion with the
members of the displaced communities and the said site was
never acceded to by the Appellants and other land oustees of the
said village for the purposes of their resettlement, there was no
question of ensuring the habitability at the resettlement site for
the occupation of the land oustees by the Respondents. The
resettlement site at Gurujang was decided by the authorities
without consultation and discussion with the land oustees and
therefore, there arises no question of accepting plots made
available for occupation of the land oustees at Gurujang by the
Respondents and that the allegations leveled against the
Appellants and land oustees regarding their approach in not
vacating their residential plots in spite of the Respondents in
having offered them plots at the resettlement site is an act of
manifest misrepresentation of facts.
It is further stated in the rejoinder affidavit that the
Respondents had fixed a target of excavation of 25 million tons
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 24 of 135
of coal per annum over the agricultural and homestead lands of
the land oustees, which had been made a reality with the co-
operation of the villagers who had consented to such acquisition
in different phases by the Respondents.
It is further stated in the rejoinder affidavit that the
very issuance of the letter of termination under clauses (3) and
(4) by the Respondents is an act of palpable arbitrariness in as
much as the as the language of clauses 3 and 4 are crystal clear
on the fact that the recorded tenants would have to vacate their
homestead lands and houses within 90 days of receipt of
resettlement benefits. Therefore, in view of the fact that no plots
were allotted to the Appellants as part of their resettlement dues
in the absence of finalization of the resettlement site, the
Appellants and other land oustees who were employees under
the Rehabilitation scheme, could not have been terminated from
their services in the guise of having violated the clauses (3) and
(4) of their appointment letters. The act of the Respondents in
terminating the services of the rehabilitated land oustees of the
said village was the subject matter of challenge before this Court
in W.P.(C) No.9477 of 2014.
It is further stated in the rejoinder affidavit that the
Appellants refused to sign on any affidavit as per the conditions
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 25 of 135
of the Respondents, since the reinstatement orders were passed
in accordance with the decisions taken by the Sub-Collector in
the meeting dated 06.07.2014 and there was nothing relating to
the signing of an affidavit accepting the conditions of the
Respondents in the said meeting.
In relation to the averments taken in the counter
affidavit that it was decided to phase-wise vacate the homestead
lands at village Hensamul by 31.10.2014 subject to arrangement
of interim accommodation by the Respondents in the meeting
presided by the Sub-Collector on 31.07.2014, it is stated in the
rejoinder affidavit that when the aforementioned decision to
vacate the homestead lands on phase-wise basis was taken on
the meeting dated 31.07.2014, it was a matter of inconceivable
perplexity for the Appellants to fathom that a decision to the said
extent was taken by the Respondents and communicated to the
Appellants in the letters of reinstatement dated 22.07.2014,
which was obviously prior to the meeting with the Sub-Collector
dated 31.07.2014 wherein the said decision was taken and
decided to be implemented by the Respondents by way of
incorporating the same in their conditions.
It is further stated in the rejoinder affidavit that the
Appellants and other land oustees of village Hensamul (Talasahi)
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 26 of 135
have not been allotted their respective lands as part of their
entitlement under the resettlement policy of the Government and
in absence of even the resettlement site situated in front of
Balanda College been cleared by the Forest Department for use
of the land with regard to non-forest use, it is an act of manifest
arbitrariness and recalcitrance to guidelines governing the
procedure to be adopted by the authorities for the purposes of
rehabilitation and resettlement prescribed by the Government,
by the Respondents in forcing the Appellants to vacate their
homestead lands.
It is further stated in the rejoinder affidavit that
Appellants and other land oustees of the concerned village never
created problems and staged a dharna at the mining site on
31.10.2014. The Respondents have resorted to similar
techniques in the past by way of filing F.I.R. before the
concerned I.I.C. to pose difficulties in the way of the Appellants
and other land oustees of the village when no such act has been
committed by them. It is stated that the land oustees of village
Hensamul (Talasahi) were ready and willing to vacate their
homestead lands subject to fulfillment of the guidelines
governing the procedure to be adopted by the Respondents in
allotting them their respective lands in the resettlement site in
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 27 of 135
the front of Balanda College by way of obtaining clearance from
the concerned department for the purpose of usage of the same
for non-forest use, pursuant to which, the Appellants shall vacate
their homestead lands and move to the interim accommodation
provided by the Respondents in the interim period till the time
the resettlement site is made habitable by the Respondents.
6. Additional affidavit was filed by the Respondents in
the writ petition, wherein it is stated, inter alia, that land
measuring of 385.88 Acres were acquired under L.A. Act and
1653.325 Acres were acquired under the CBA Act of village
Hensamul. So far as the acquisition of land of village Hensamul
under CBA Act is concerned, first the acquired land was vested to
the Central Government under section 10 of the CBA Act, free
from all encumbrances. Under section 11 of the CBA Act, the
Central Government divested the acquired land under section 10
in favour of the MCL (previously CCL thereafter SECL) starting
from dt.09.11.1978 and the last being on dt.31.08.2004. Thus,
the Appellants cannot claim any relief under the R & R Policy,
2006.
It is stated in the additional affidavit that so far as
acquisition of land under L.A. Act of village Hensamul is
concerned, the possession of lands was taken by the MCL by
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 28 of 135
11.03.2005 and possession of only a small portion of land
measuring Ac.73.39 was taken on 27.09.2008 which were only
agricultural lands. The houses and homestead lands of village
Hensamul were acquired and possession was taken much before
2004 under the C.B.A. Act. The Appellants were creating trouble
in not vacating the houses and homestead lands claiming to avail
the benefits under R & R Policy, 2006, which should not be
entertained.
It is further stated in the additional affidavit that
since the notification to acquire the agricultural land and
homestead land was much prior to 14.05.2006 i.e., the date
when R & R Policy, 2006 came into force, the Appellants have no
right to claim any benefits under 2006 Policy.
7. The learned Single Judge considering the fact that
lands of the Appellants had already been acquired and that they
had been paid the land acquisition compensation amount besides
employment being provided to them and since they have also
been provided with alternate accommodation in the quarters of
the MCL, did not find any merit in the claim of the Appellants. It
was observed that the Appellants have no right to claim that
they would vacate the homestead lands under their occupation
only after they were provided with alternate house sites, which
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 29 of 135
has no legs to stand. Recording the submission of MCL authority
that they were under process of allotting the alternate sites and
the same is being delayed for some technical reasons, the
learned Single Judge directed the State authority to co-operate
with the MCL authority in the matter of finalization of the
alternate sites under the particular rehabilitation package.
However, keeping in view that the MCL Company is in urgent
need of mining in the locality, which was definitely in the larger
interest of the country and further keeping in view that the MCL
Company had already made quarters available for
accommodation of the Appellants till they were provided with
alternate accommodation sites, the learned Single Judge was not
inclined to grant reliefs sought for by the Appellants and
accordingly, dismissed the writ petition vide impugned judgment
and order dated 13.01.2015.
8. The Writ Appeal was filed on 22.01.2015 to set aside
judgment and order dated 13.01.2015 passed by the learned
Single Judge and for a direction to the Respondents not to take
any coercive action against the Appellants by evicting them from
their dwelling houses and/or by terminating their employment,
till they are physically allotted plots in the resettlement site.
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 30 of 135
During pendency of the Writ Appeal, an additional
affidavit was filed by the Appellants on 06.09.2017, wherein it
was indicated that pursuant to the filing of the Writ Appeal,
several meetings were held between the State Government, MCL
Authorities and the villagers of Hensamul (Talasahi) regarding
shifting, rehabilitation and resettlement issues and eviction of
encroachment over the disputed lands. On 16.02.2015, a
meeting was held at the official chamber of the Sub-Collector,
Talcher wherein the Sub-Collector, Talcher requested both MCL
and the villagers to sort out the issues between them amicably
and in the same meeting, it was resolved that since the Writ
Appeal is pending before this Court, the final decision of this
Court shall be binding on both the villagers and MCL. Another
meeting of MCL was held on 17.06.2015 in the Collectorate,
Angul wherein a detailed discussion was made regarding the cut-
off date of village Hensamul, implementation of R & R Policy,
2006, shifting of village Hensamul (Talasahi) and other issues of
village Hensamul. Similarly, one meeting was held on
29.10.2015 wherein discussion was made on PDF list, shifting of
village Hensamul (Talasahi) to the resettlement site located in
front of Balanda College and other issues. The important factor
of the meeting was that the Sub-Collector, Talcher requested the
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 31 of 135
villagers to shift to the temporary accommodation provided by
MCL immediately for greater interest to which the villagers
responded that they would shift to the resettlement site once the
same is ready as per their demand. On 02.11.2015, a meeting
was held by MCL between its CGM/GMs wherein it was resolved
that shifting of Talasahi and Saharsahi should be expedited and
the existing R & R Policy, 2006 should be implemented in
finalizing the benefits to the displaced persons. On 13.11.2015,
another meeting was held regarding 3rd Project Level
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Committee of Jagannath Area,
MCL wherein shifting of P.D.Fs. of Hensamul (Talasahi) to the
allotted transit quarters, development of R & R site for PDFs of
village Hensamul, Talasahi were discussed. Regarding shifting of
village (Talasahi), a meeting was convened by the Collector,
Angul on 02.02.2016, wherein it was held that 106 plots have
been demarcated in the resettlement site as per approved lay
out plan which were free from encroachments and another
encroach free land for 21 plots was required to accommodate the
balance 127 project displaced families of village Hensamul
(Talasahi). On 29.03.2016, a meeting was held in the office of
the Sub-Collector, Talcher regarding the shifting of village
Hensamul (Talasahi) under the Chairmanship of Sub-Collector,
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 32 of 135
Talcher. After substantial discussion, the Sub-Collector, Talcher
had suggested few points to facilitate the shifting of Hensamul
(Talasahi) village which was accepted by MCL. The points are
discussed below:
I. The GM, Jagannath Area would follow up the
transfer case of Sri Parsuram Sahoo as discussed in
the meeting held under the Chairmanship of
Collector, Angul on 23.02.2016 in the presence of
Director Technical (P&P) and Director Personnel, MCL
Headquarter;
II. The PDF list would be finalised as early as
possible. The special LAO (MCL) would call a meeting
of GM (L & R) and village representatives of
Hensamul (Talasahi) to finalise the list as per
procedure;
III. The GM, Jagannath Area will take initiative for
eviction of the encroachers of the Balanda
rehabilitation site to make the required plots free to
accommodate the land losers of Hensamul after
finalization of PDF list. The survey of the encroachers
would be done within ten days in co-ordination with
the local Revenue Inspector, Ghantapada Circle.
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 33 of 135
Survey of the encroachers who have encroached the
area approved by TAMDA would only be made to
make it easier for eviction;
IV. The GM, Jagannath Area would take proactive
step for shifting of the existing Gram Panchayat
office and High School in consultation with the EDO,
Talcher, District Education Officer, Angul, Tahasildar,
Talcher, village representative and President of the
School within the time bound manner;
V. As decided in the meeting held under the
Chairmanship of Collector, Angul on 21.03.2016, the
2006 R & R Policy would be applicable in case of
eligible families after receipt of clearance from higher
quarters;
VI. After finalization of PDF list and development of
the resettlement site in front of Balanda College, the
villagers would vacate the village within a specified
time;
VII. It is broadly agreed by both MCL and village
representatives of Hensamul (Talasahi) that after the
finalization of PDF list and development of the
resettlement site for them in front of Balanda
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 34 of 135
College, the villagers would shift to the new site as
early as possible.
On 25.11.2016, the Collector, Angul sent a letter to
the General Manager, Jagannath Area, MCL, Talcher informing
therein that during the visit on 16.11.2016 to the resettlement
site in front of Balanda College for the PDFs of village Hensamul
(Talasahi), it could be noticed that no work was going on at the
site. The works such as road, drain, water supply and electricity
were yet to be started in spite of several persuasions and
discussions. The PDFs village Hensamul (Talasahi) are losing
faith and confidence on MCL for such inaction. The Collector,
Angul requested therein in to take necessary steps and complete
the minimum infrastructure development works immediately.
In the Additional Affidavit, it is further stated that the
Collector, Angul vide its letter dated 30.03.2017 addressed to
the Sub-Collector, Talcher regarding the development of R & R
site at Balanda for PAF of Hensamul village stated therein that
G.M., Jagannath Area has requested vide letter dated
22.03.2017 to arrange for handing over the encroachment free
land to MCL to complete the infrastructure development work in
time at resettlement site in front of Balanda College. In the video
conferencing held on 17.02.2017, it was decided that MCL to
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 35 of 135
complete infrastructure development work at the site by
15.05.2017. District Administration would take necessary steps
to shift the PDFs of village Hensamul (Talasahi) to transit
accommodation allotted by MCL w.e.f 15.06.2017 and also to
take steps to evict the encroachers from the site w.e.f
15.03.2017 on payment of ex-gratia. However, not a single
encroacher had vacated the encroached land. The Collector in
such letter requested to take necessary steps and complete the
eviction of encroachers from the Resettlement site immediately
so as to hand over encroached free land to MCL for completion of
infrastructure development work in the scheduled time i.e.
15.05.2017.
In the Additional Affidavit, it is further stated that the
General Manager, Jagannath Area vide its letter dated
16.05.2017 addressed to the District Collector, Angul informed
therein that the development activities at Balanda R & R site are
in progress and are in various stages of completion. The
progress of main drain has been stopped since last four months
due to non-removal of encroachment at the site and road work is
also likely to be stopped, if the encroachment is not removed. At
the end, it was requested to look into the matter and arrange for
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 36 of 135
handover the encroachment free land to MCL so that the balance
R & R activities would be completed at the earliest.
In the Additional Affidavit, it is further stated that on
27.05.2017, a meeting was convened at the office of the Sub-
Collector, Angul regarding the difficulties faced by the villagers of
Hensamul Village wherein the demands of the villagers were
discussed and after a thorough discussion, it was concluded that
since the year 2012, no steps has been taken by the authorities
to resettle the villagers of Hensamul village in spite of repeated
request, therefore, the villagers requested the officials to
cooperate and take a decision.
In the Additional Affidavit, it is further stated that the
General Manager, Jagannath Area vide its letter dated
20.02.2017 addressed to the Special Land Acquisition Officer,
MCL, Angul requested to take necessary steps for eviction of 164
encroachers at the R & R site for the scheduled completion of
development works so that the shifting of the 105 employee
families can be done smoothly.
The Collector & District Magistrate, Angul vide its
letter dated 02.06.2017 addressed to the Director, (Personal),
MCL informed therein that MCL had not taken any effective step
for vacation of the interim order granted by this Court in W.P.(C)
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 37 of 135
No.15881 of 2015 wherein this Hon‟ble Court had directed not to
evict the petitioners therein i.e. the encroachers till the next date
of listing, for which the District Administration is at stake and
unable to render any assistance to the Project Officer -Cum-
Estate Officer for eviction of 21 encroachers.
It is further stated in the Additional Affidavit that on
09.06.2017, the General Manager, Jagannath Area sent letter to
the Director Technical (Operation), MCL HQ, Burla informing
therein that the issue regarding the Appellants‟ village has been
finalized in the high-level meeting held with Chief Secretary,
Govt. of Odisha, MLA, Talcher and CMLD, MCL. MCL management
in the said meeting also requested to allow the balance 30
hectares of land at Coal Stockyard No.08 which was turned down
by the MLA and the villagers.
On 12.07.2017, a meeting was convened between
the M.L.A, Talcher, Superintendent of Police, Angul and
Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, MCL wherein the Sub-
Collector, Talcher informed the House that due to the non-
finalization of the demands of the above village in time, the coal
production and smooth transportation of coal had been stopped,
which created law and order situation as well as loss of revenue
to both Govt. of India and State. Therefore, he requested the
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 38 of 135
House to finalize the village wise issue for smooth running of coal
mining projects in Talcher Coalfields area and to avoid unhealthy
situation. In the said meeting, the village of the Appellants also
found place at Sl. No.7. While discussing about the same, the
authorities decided that steps to be taken to evict the
encroachers either on payment of ex-gratia sanctioned by the
MCL or as per law and that the villages should shift to transit
accommodation provided by MCL immediately and to allow the
proposed area for extraction of coal for the interest of nation.
It is stated in the Additional Affidavit that the land in
dispute had been encroached upon by the encroachers and MCL
had not made any endeavours to remove such encroachment
from the resettlement site in front of Balanda College. The Kisam
of the land being jungle together with illegal encroachment which
were yet to be evicted by following due process of law and there
existed no definite time within which, the resettlement site could
be finalised and the Appellants could be physically allotted with
their respective plots.
It is stated in the Additional Affidavit that the
contention of the MCL that such situation was prevalent due to
the action of the Appellants in not vacating land which was
affecting the coal production thereby, hampering the interest of
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 39 of 135
the Country is per se misconceived and frivolous, which was
evident from the reports from the year 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-
16 and 2016-17. The affected persons were not rehabilitated and
resettled and that there was no urgency of evicting them without
fulfilling prior commitments made by the Respondents.
It is stated in the Additional Affidavit that the
Appellants without having received the benefits under the policy
and physical allotment of lands at resettlement site, the
conditions imposed by the Respondents in directing the
Appellants to vacate their homestead lands was in blatant
violation of not only their own terms and conditions but also the
R & R Policy, 2006.
9. In pursuance of the order dated 20.09.2022, the
Respondents filed an affidavit dated 12.01.2023, wherein it is
stated that all the Appellants had been allotted plots in the
resettlement site vide plot allotments letters dt.22.12.20I9 and
the same have been received by the Appellants.
Out of the 102 appellants who have been allotted
plots at the Balanda resettlement site, 21 appellants (i.e.,
appellant nos.5, 40, 42, 43, 45, 47, 52, 54, 57, 62, 68, 69, 73,
74, 79, 80, 91, 93, 95, 99 and 102) had already constructed
houses over the plots allotted to them/constructing houses over
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 40 of 135
the plots allotted to them and that out of the aforesaid
Appellants, the Appellant no.80 i.e., Sanata Kumar Biswal had
started living in the house constructed over the plot allotted to
him. All the eligible Appellants had been allotted quarters in
various localities/colonies of MCL and a majority of the
Appellants are staying in the said quarters allotted to them by
MCL as an alternative site in lieu of the plots allotted to them.
In the affidavit, it is further stated that almost all the
plots allotted to the Appellants are free from all encumbrance.
Only five plots allotted to Appellant nos.9, 19, 22, 28 and 31
have been encroached which has been made by a private school
i.e., Nigamananda Little Star School (hereinafter for short „NLS
School‟) and that the said school had been issued notice for
eviction u/s.12 of the CBA Act, which has been challenged by the
said school in a writ petition bearing W.P. (C) No.8549 of 2019
before this Court. Those five Appellants have been provided
accommodation in the quarters of MCL colonies and they are
staying in the said quarters.
In the affidavit, it is further stated that even though
resettlement plots have been allotted to the Appellants and
many of the Appellants have constructed houses over the plots
and almost all the Appellants are staying in the alternative
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 41 of 135
accommodation provided by the Respondents in the quarters of
MCL colonies, the Appellants are not vacating their homestead
lands and not handing over possession in Hensamul (Talasahi),
which was causing a great hindrance to the progress of
Bhubaneswari Open Cast Project Coal Mines.
It is further stated in the affidavit that the mining
face of Bhubaneswari OCP had reached near the residential
houses in Hensamul (Talasahi). As the Appellants are neither
vacating nor handing over their homestead lands in Hensamul
(Talasahi), the mining activity in Bhubaneswari OCP is being
seriously affected and within a short span of time, it would come
to a standstill position.
It is further stated in the affidavit that Bhubaneswari
OCP is one of the biggest coal mines in Asia with a production
capacity of 28 million tones and is of strategic national
significance as major coal excavated from this mine was being
transported to major power houses producing electricity in India.
If the Appellants would not vacate their homestead lands and
buildings standing over there, the coal production in one of the
biggest coal mines in Asia i.e., Bhubaneswari OCP will come to a
standstill which may lead to power crises.
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 42 of 135
It is further stated in the affidavit that the
resettlement site provided to the Appellants had basic amenities
such as road, electricity, boundary wall, concrete drainage
network, club house, Jagnya Mandap etc. In view of the
resettlement plots allotted to the Appellants, the prayer of the
Appellants in the writ appeal being not to take any coercive
actions against the Appellants by evicting them from their
dwelling houses and/or by terminating their employment till they
are physically allotted plots in resettlement site has become
infructuous.
It is further stated in the affidavit that if the
Appellants did not vacate their homestead lands and buildings
standing thereon in Hensamul (Talasahi), the coal production in
Bhubaneswari OCP would be seriously affected and would come
to a standstill position which might lead to power crises all over
the nation. Therefore, the Appellants are to be directed to vacate
their homestead lands and buildings standing thereon at
Hensamul (Talasahi) and hand over possession of the same to
the Respondents at the earliest.
10. The Appellants filed objection affidavit dated
23.03.2023 to the affidavit dated 12.01.2023 filed by the
Respondents, wherein it is stated that though the stand has been
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 43 of 135
taken by the MCL that Appellants had been allotted with plots in
the resettlement site vide plot allotment letter dated
22/12/2019, however, those allotments have only been carried
out on documents but not in physical form and those sites are
not free from series of impediments both in the form of
feasibility, encroachment and encumbrances. MCL has not yet
cleared the encroachments over the Balanda Resettlement site.
There are fifteen numbers of plots in Balanda Resettlement Site
which have not been allotted in as much as, possession has not
been delivered due to the pendency of W.P.(C) No.8549 of 2019
filed by one of the encroacher NLS School against the State of
Odisha objecting to their eviction. The said NLS School is existing
over 15 plots i.e. Plot No.128, 129, 130, 131, 141, 140, 139,
138, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 121, 122 situated in the Balanda
Re-settlement site. In the said writ petition, this Court has
passed an interim order of status quo which is continuing.
It is further stated in the objection affidavit that
there has been no construction of drainage/sewerage by MCL in
the allotted sites. Owing to dispute between the contractor
responsible for those civic constructions and MCL which is
pending before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) in Civil Suit
No.410 of 2019 and C.S.(III)/608/2021 pending before the
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 44 of 135
learned Commercial Court, Cuttack, such work is not gaining any
progress. Due to non-development of main drainage over the
site which is constructed, development works in respect of seven
plots i.e. Plot No.99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104 and 105 have not
taken place.
It is further stated in the objection affidavit that the
tenders have been called for and works have been awarded to
contractors to undertake site levelling work as plots are low
causing water logging. Such levelling work is ongoing and the
same would take more time to make it feasible for homestead
purpose. Furthermore, basic amenities such as drinking water,
electrification and road have not been developed. Though
contractors were engaged to perform those works but no such
work has commenced.
In the 12th RPDAC meeting held on 31.08.2021, it
was decided by the RDC in respect of such agenda vide Sl. No.15
that MCL is to complete all the infrastructures and development
works within one month along with basic amenities etc., and
take steps for shifting of the PDFs. The left-out claims for
employment issues of Hensamul (Talasahi) shall be placed before
a joint committee under the chairmanship of Sub-Collector,
Talcher for finalization. Till date, no action has been taken by the
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 45 of 135
district administration for providing employment to the eligible
family members of the Appellants under rehabilitation benefits.
The minutes of meeting dated 26.10.2021 which was
held for discussion of temporary shifting of Panchayat Office of
Hensamul (Tahasil), has already been shifted with 14 families
with their dwelling houses, Shiva Temple & Pond to cooperate
the MCL Management to achieve their targeted coal production,
but in return, till date both resettlement & rehabilitation has not
yet been finalised.
It is further stated in the objection affidavit that
though the resettlement plots were allotted, but till date, no
action had been taken to provide Record of Rights to the land
oustees. The said land was acquired by under the CBA Act, thus
appropriate steps were to be taken to refer the matter to the
State Government for issuance of Record of Rights, however, no
such steps were taken to such effect.
It is further stated in the objection affidavit that the
stand taken by the Respondents that out of 102 Appellants, 21
Appellants have constructed houses and Appellant No.80 Sanata
Kumar Biswal has started living in the house constructed over
the plot allotted to him, is not correct. In fact, 21 Appellants
have started construction which are not yet to be completed and
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 46 of 135
even if those constructions would be completed, they cannot
reside there due to lack of basic civil infrastructure such as water
supply, drainage, electricity connection, roads etc. So far as the
Appellant No.80 is concerned, he is unable to shift to his house
for the lack of the aforementioned facilities in the area.
It is further stated in the objection affidavit that the
stand taken by the Respondents that majority of the Appellants
were staying in the quarters allotted to them by MCL as an
alternative site in lieu of the plots allotted to them is incorrect.
Those quarters were allotted to the MCL employees as a course
of their employment, but not as an alternative site in lieu of
plots. The quarters are small in size and cannot cater the
household goods, assets and cattle of the land oustees. In fact,
all the family members were required to be fit in those tiny
quarters which were never meant to be an alternative site. Only
six nos. of families were provided with Company alternative
accommodation at the time of shifting of Panchayat Office &
fourteen nos. of families to facilitate the mines for its coal
production.
It is further stated in the objection affidavit that the
stand taken by the Respondents that almost all the plots are free
from all encumbrances and only five plots allotted to the
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 47 of 135
Appellant Nos.9, 19, 22, 28 and 31 have been encroached is not
correct. There are litigations pending with respect to the lands,
wherein interim orders have been passed. CMD MCL assured to
pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh
only) to each of the encroachers which was also accepted by the
encroachers. After disposal of the W.P. (C) No.15881 of 2015, 87
encroachers over the Balanda site have accepted the
compensation amount and have vacated. So far as the stand
taken that five appellants had been provided with quarters, it is
stated that those quarters are employees‟ quarters and not
allotted as an alternative site in lieu of the land allotted to them.
It is stated that the production of MCL has increased
substantially in the recent years and they are comfortably
meeting their targets, thus the stand taken by MCL that the
Appellants were responsible for the loss to MCL is not correct.
It is stated that the said Jagnya Ghar was
constructed by the land oustees and not by MCL. The club shown
at Balanda R & R site is at a dilapidated condition and cannot be
used. The road and electrification shown is an attempt to confuse
this Hon'ble Court. MCL is only showing the parts which are
favourable to them and not the actual facts. In majority part of
the sites, only electric polls have been installed and there is no
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 48 of 135
electricity connection, not even wire connection has been
provided. MCL is trying to play with the interest of land oustees
who have been fighting battles for their entitlement in lieu of
their lands.
It is stated that the writ petition was disposed of in
view of the fact that MCL had already made quarters available
for accommodation of the Appellants till they were provided with
alternate accommodation sites, however, no site was available
for taking over physical possession so as to stay in those sites.
As a matter of fact, the quarters were also not safe for staying
which would be evident from the letters issued by MCL itself. In
addition thereto, there is no certain timeline fixed either by this
Court or by MCL by which time the resettlement/shifting shall be
undertaken from the interim quarters. It is admitted fact that the
Collector has not issued the completion of Resettlement Work
Certificate as per Clause 8 of the R & R Policy, 2006, thus, the
Resettlement work is not yet over. The MCL is required to take
necessary steps to remove the encroachers from the
rehabilitation sites. The development work such as drainage,
sewerage, ground levelling work, connecting roads and facilities
such as drinking water and electricity supply etc. are to be
completed as early as possible.
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 49 of 135
11. The Respondents filed the reply on 04.07.2023 to the
objection affidavit dated 23.03.2023 of the Appellants, wherein it
is stated that after getting all the benefits such as land
compensation, employment and residential quarters, the
Appellants were not vacating the homestead lands deliberately
and creating hindrance to the mining activities for which the
Respondents sustained huge loss as well as loss to the public
exchequer.
The Appellants have been allotted plots in the
resettlement site vide plot allotments letters dated 22.12.2019
and the same have been received by the Appellants. Out of the
102 Appellants, who have been allotted plots at the Balanda
resettlement site, 21 Appellants i.e. Appellant nos.5, 40, 42, 43,
45, 47, 52, 54, 57, 62, 68, 68, 73, 74, 79, 80, 91, 93, 95, 99
and 102 have already constructed houses over the plots allotted
to them/constructing houses over the plots allotted to them and
out of the aforesaid Appellants, the Appellant no.80 Sanata
Kumar Biswal has started living in the house constructed over
the plot allotted to him and all the eligible appellants had been
allotted quarters in various localities/colonies of MCL and a
majority of the Appellants are staying in the said quarters
allotted to them by MCL as an alternative arrangement.
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 50 of 135
It is stated that almost all the plots allotted to the
Appellants are free from all encumbrance and only 6 plots
allotted to the Appellant nos.9, 19, 22, 28, 31 and 82 have been
encroached. The said encroachment has been done by a private
school and the said school has been issued notice for eviction
under section 12 of the CBA Act, which was challenged by the
said school in W.P.(C) No.8549 of 2019, which is pending for
disposal.
It is stated that the resettlement site at Balanda has
been provided to the Appellants with basic amenities such as
concrete road, electricity, boundary wall, club house etc. and
other amenities which are not been completed, would be
completed in course of shifting of the Appellants to the R & R
site. The Appellants have been allotted plots in the resettlement
site and almost all the plots allotted to the Appellants are free
from any encumbrance. Out of total 154 plots, only 12 plots i.e.
plot nos.128, 129, 130, 131, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144
and 145 were having encroachment by a private school, namely,
NLS School not fifteen plots as stated by the Appellants. The
encroachment has been done by NLS School and out of those
twelve plots, only six plots have been allotted to Appellant nos.9,
19, 22, 28, 31 and 82 are under encroachment. Many of the
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 51 of 135
Appellants have constructed houses over the plots and all the
Appellants are staying in the company quarters provided by MCL,
but the Appellants are not vacating their homestead lands
stating they were staying in the village.
It is further stated that the Appellants along with
their families are staying in the temporary accommodation
quarters allotted to them. However, the parents of some of the
Appellants are still residing at Hensamul (Talasahi) even after
getting all the benefits as per the policies prevalent at the
relevant point of time.
It is further stated that a total 6769.50 mtrs. of
drainage/sewerage work has been completed and balance
drainage/sewerage work of 1085 mtrs. are yet to be completed
in the R & R site. The constructions of drainage, sewerage near
seven plots stated in the petition have not been made but MCL
has initiated process for construction of different infrastructures
at Balanda R & R site including aforesaid drainage and sewerage
works. The dispute between the contractor and MCL is pending
before the Commercial Court, Cuttack vide C.S. No.318 of 2019
but the same would not affect the developmental works at the
site.
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 52 of 135
It is further stated that the leveling works has been
completed at the site and the site is ready to use for homestead
purpose. With regard to providing basic amenities such as
drinking water, the MoU between MCL and RWSS division, Angul
has been executed for providing drinking water to the R & R site
and accordingly, Executive Engineer (RWSS) has issued a work
order to the contractor and MCL has already released an amount
of Rs.2.18 crores towards first installment on dated 03.03.2022
and 70% of pipeline laying work i.e. 5219.00 mtrs. has been
completed by RWSS and 80% of construction work of
underground reservoir and 50% work of construction of
overhead tank has been completed. Notwithstanding provision of
RWSS to provide drinking water to the site, the villagers are
being supplied water at their existing places of stay through
portable water tankers and they shall continue to be supplied
water till commencing of RWSS.
So far as construction of road is concerned, it is
stated that 3280.61 mtrs. of concrete road has already been
completed in the R & R site and balance 955.00 mtrs. is yet to
be completed. MCL has initiated a scheme for construction of
different infrastructures at Balanda R & R site including concrete
road works.
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 53 of 135
So far as electrification work is concerned, Tata
power has completed 70% of the total work which includes 11
KV new line shifting (length 0.550 km.), distribution,
transformer, preliminary work for installation, erection of 40 nos.
poles of Low voltage transmission (LT) lines and removal of old
11 KV line from the R & R site etc. and the rest of the work is
pending due to hindrance caused by the villagers of Hensamul
(Talasahi). The TPCODL has stocked up the materials like poles,
cables and transformers at the resettlement site, but the
TPCODL intimated through mail dated 06.05.2023 that due to
non-clearance of the site, the execution of works at the site has
been stopped.
It is stated that to complete the development works
at remaining places, a joint team comprising of Survey, Civil, L &
R & E & M department personnel along with representatives of
Tata Power went to the Balanda resettlement site on 24 th March
2023 for completion of the development works at the remaining
places and subsequently, on 31st May 2023 for measuring and
demarcation works, but the villagers of Hensamul (Talasahi)
prevented the team from the work and threatened the team to
hold hostage and of dire consequences for which the team
returned from the site to avoid any law and order situation. MCL
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 54 of 135
has also appraised the situation to the Sub-Collector, Talcher and
sought his kind intervention in the matter for early resolution.
After getting entire benefits such as compensation, employment,
the Appellants and their family members along with villagers are
deliberately and unlawfully restraining the MCL personnel and
hindering the aforesaid development works with a malafide
intention not to allow the MCL for mining.
It is further stated that due to acquisition of village
Hensamul (Talasahi), 321 employments/cash in lieu of
employments have been provided by MCL as per Orissa R & R
policies prevalent at the relevant point of time. There are no left
out eligible cases for employments remained in the village as per
the R & R policies, but the employment demands could not be
embroiled into the matter of resettlement. The resettlement site
has been provided with basic amenities such as road, electricity,
boundary wall, drainage in most of the places which were free
from encroachment, but due to encroachment of eight
individuals and one private school, namely, NLS School over the
remaining areas, the development works could not be completed
at that time i.e. when the 12th RPDAC meeting took place
31.08.2021. Now, all the encroachers except NLS School have
been shifted/evicted from the site and in the meanwhile,
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 55 of 135
necessary steps for drinking water and electrification works at
the site taken by MCL and these works have been outsourced to
RWSS and Tata Power for execution.
It is further stated that twelve families have shifted
and not fourteen families. Out of these twelve families, who have
shifted, ten families i.e. Appellant nos.3, 4, 18, 20, 42, 43, 58,
70, 79 and 97 are the Appellants in the Writ Appeal. In spite of
providing all the R & R benefits, still 143 PDFs remained to be
shifted from the village. They have been raising irrelevant issues
to justify their illegal holding onto the acquired land.
Employment benefits and resettlement plots have been provided
to these twelve families as per Odisha R & R policy and all these
families have been provided company quarters for
accommodation.
It is further stated that the resettlement site at
Balanda is situated over land acquired under CBA Act and there
is no provision to issue RoR under CBA Act acquired land and as
per guideline issued by the Ministry of Coal vide letter
No.43022/1/2020-LAIR dated 22.04.2022, the land could be
leased out to land oustees for 99 years. As per clause 4(5)(e) of
the said guidelines, the allotted plots would be leased out in
favour of respective allottees only after shifting of the Appellants
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 56 of 135
to the site. As such, plot allotment orders have already been
issued in their names.
It is stated that Appellant no.80 has constructed the
house over his allotment plot in R & R site and was staying in the
house and also rented out some part of the house, but after the
issue ventilated before this Court by MCL, the said Appellant has
now vacated his house in the R & R site and shifted and filed
declaration in order to support the case of the Appellants. All the
Appellants are allotted quarters for temporary accommodation till
they shift to the R & R site. In the meanwhile, some of the
Appellants have been allotted quarters as per their eligibility and
they have been shifted to their allotted quarters from temporary
accommodation (quarters). The resettlement site has been
provided with basic amenities such as road, electricity, boundary
wall and drainage in most of the places.
It is stated that the leveling works has been
completed at the site and with regard to providing basic
amenities such as drinking water, a MoU between MCL and
RWSS division, Angul was signed for providing drinking water to
the site and accordingly, Executive Engineer (RWSS) has issued
a work order to the contractor dated 15.09.2022 and in that
respect, the MCL has also released an amount of Rs.2.18 crores
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 57 of 135
towards first instalment. The declaration filed by the Appellants
is only with an intention to create hindrance in mining activities.
It is further stated that all the Appellants have been
provided with temporary accommodations till the shifting to the
R & R site and not in due course of their employment. Only six
plots have been allotted to Appellant nos.9, 19, 22, 28, 31 and
82 and the same has been encroached by NLS School. Except
that portion of land encroached by NLS School, other lands are
free from encroachment and no case is pending for
encroachment of the R & R site. These Appellants are staying in
the company quarters provided by MCL as temporary
accommodation and only NLS School‟s case vide W.P.(C)
No.8549 of 2019 is pending for disposal. So far as W.P.(C)
No.9006 of 2019 is concerned, the same has been disposed of
and the appeal under section 9 of the PP Act, 1971 preferred by
one Sagar Naik and another before the learned A.D.J., Talcher
and the same has also been dismissed as withdrawn and they
have vacated from the encroached area.
It is further stated that Bhubaneswari OCP is one of
the biggest coal mines in India with a production capacity of 28
million tons and also major coal excavated from the mine is
being transported to major power houses producing electricity in
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 58 of 135
India. Last year owing non-vacation of acquired village land by
the villagers, MCL faced with tough task of achieving coal
production target to supply coal to power houses, but under
exigency circumstances, MCL had to scramble through whatever
little possible patches of land available in the mine to somehow
reach the production target with great difficulty. In the current
Financial Year, the production of the mine has been reduced to
more than 50% due to exigency of land with no other
alternatives available. MCL might not achieve the coal production
target due to non-availability of the land of village Hensamul
(Talasahi) and therefore, it is very urgent and necessary to shift
the villagers from Hensamul (Talasahi) to the R & R site for
continuance supply of coal to the power producing industries.
It is further stated that the resettlement site at
Balanda has been provided to the Appellants with basic
amenities such as road, electricity, boundary wall, drainage in
most of the places and total 6769.50 mtrs. of drainage/sewerage
work has been completed and balance drainage/sewerage work
of 1085 mtrs. is yet to be completed in the R & R site and
3280.61 mtrs. of concrete road has already been completed in
the R & R site and balance 955.00 mtrs. is yet to be completed.
The club house was constructed in the year 2016 in R & R site
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 59 of 135
with all the basic facilities, but it has been remaining unutilized
till date for which some facilities/accessories of the club house
has been damaged and the same would be renovated before
shifting of the villagers to the R & R site.
So far as construction of road, MCL has initiated a
scheme for construction of different infrastructures at Balanda R
& R site including drainage and sewerage works.
All these families have been provided company
quarters for accommodation and they are staying in these
quarters with their families. All the Appellants have been
provided with R & R benefits including employment benefits and
they have been allotted resettlement plots at Balanda
resettlement site and for temporary accommodation, these
Appellants have been provided company quarters and they are
also staying in these quarters along with their families but they
are deliberately not shifting to the R & R site.
It is further stated that all the encroachers have
been removed from the site except NLS School. The villagers are
creating hindrances to complete the development works in the
remaining places in the site and taking frivolous pleas not to
vacate their homestead lands and they are creating hindrances
in the progress of Bhubaneswari Mine which is a mega project of
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 60 of 135
India. Due to non-shifting of the villagers of Hensamul
(Talasahi), the mine has come to standstill position and the basti
of Hensamul (Talasahi) is situated at the edge of mine, which is
very unsafe and endanger to the lives of the villagers as well as
mine workers and thus, this Court might direct to the Appellants
to vacate their homestead land as well as abstain from
obstructing the development works at the R & R site for smooth
operation of coal mines and if the Appellants did not vacate their
homestead land and building standing thereon in Hensamul
(Talasahi), the coal production in Bhubaneswari OCP would be
seriously affected and would come to a standstill position which
might lead to power crises all over the nation.
12. Appellants filed additional/reply affidavit dated
02.08.2023 to the reply affidavit dated 04.07.2023 filed by the
Respondents, wherein it is stated that the Appellants along with
other land oustees have not yet received basic amenities under
the R & R Policy, 2006.
It is stated that the Appellants along with other land
oustees were always been cooperative with the Respondents and
are eager to shift to the Balanda Resettlement Site. The
Respondents are yet to provide the basic amenities such as
electricity connection, connecting roads and other facilities such
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 61 of 135
as drinking water, etc. The developmental work like the ground
leveling work, drainage and sewerage are yet to be completed.
As the Balanda Resettlement site has not been live worthy even
after a period of more than nine years, the Appellants who are
willing and cooperative with the Respondent authorities are not
able to relocate to the said site and due to such delay, the
Appellants and other land oustees are not able to trust the
conduct of the Respondent Authorities.
It is further stated in the affidavit that no
developmental work has been done since the month of March
2023 and considering the grievances of the villagers of the
villages of Hensamul, Kalamachuin, Raghunathpur, Nakeipashi,
Padmabatipur, Mahendrapur, Patharamunda and Chhelia (which
have been acquired by MCL), a meeting was held on 08.06.2023
under the Chairmanship of the Collector, Angul, where the MLA,
Talcher, Sub-Collector, Talcher, Special Land Acquisition Officer,
MCL, Angul, Director (Technical), Director ( Personnel), MCL,
Burla, General Manager, Jagannath Area, MCL, Talcher and other
officials of MCL were present along with the representatives from
the villages of the aforesaid villages. In the said meeting, a
resolution was passed considering the facts and circumstances
mentioned by the villagers and accepted by the authorities. The
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 62 of 135
decision relating to the present Appellants made in the said
resolution dated 08.06.2023 is summarized as follows:
i. MCL Authorities have to decide the
Employment and PDF cases of the people of
Hensamul village within a period of fifteen days and
give a report to the District Administration;
ii. An agreement is to be drawn between the NLS
School and the MCL Authorities to shift them to a
temporary accommodation and MCL Authorities shall
provide them a temporary accommodation till the
matter is disposed of by this Court;
iii. There are allegations that the school building
which has been constructed to shift the Panchayat
High School, Hensamul, is of low quality. Hence, a
Joint Committee including the representatives of the
village, the authorities of MCL and the District
Administration shall be constituted and the same
committee shall submit a report on the issue. After
delivery of possession of the Panchayat High School
to the Government, the District Administration shall
take steps to upgrade and repair the said school
through Sarba Shiksha Abhiyan. It is also directed to
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 63 of 135
the MCL Authorities to complete the boundary wall of
the newly constructed and inaugurated Panchayat
High School, Hensamul and then shift the same from
the old location to the new location;
iv. The MCL Authorities have to take a decision in
their Board in respect of the claim of 10 lakhs rupees
each by the PDFs who have given their consent to
receive the plots. It is noticed that the Balanda R & R
Colony which is meant for the Hensamul (Talasahi)
has not been provided with the basic amenities till
date. Hence, it is directed to complete the same
within a period of one month;
v. The grievances of the people in relation to
Rehabilitation, Employment and Resettlement are to
be mitigated by the Director (Technical) and Director
(Personnel), MCL, Burla;
vi. MCL is directed to release the compensation
amount to the public as early as possible in the event
the MCL Authorities have already made a decision to
give solatium and interest on the assessed value of
the houses on the Government Land;
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 64 of 135
vii. The MCL Authorities have to take steps in
obtaining ROR and NOC for the Panchayat High
School and constructing the boundary wall after
consultation with Sub-Collector, Talcher and SDPO,
Talcher.
Pursuant to the said meeting, the villagers of
Hensamul provided MCL Authorities with an area of
approximately 40 Acres for the purposes of mining and the
building of Panchayat High School, Hensamul and Nodal U.P.
School, Hensamul, which were located within such area were
demolished.
It is further stated in the affidavit that the
Respondents have portrayed incorrect facts regarding the
completion of land filling in the low-line areas in the Balanda R &
R Colony in order to cloud the judgment of this Court. The
Appellants have been provided with the description of work
allotted to the Contractor with the issuance of the work order
dated 21.02.2022 and the Summary Report of the Balanda R & R
site filling dated 25.05.2023 and the same shows that only a
volume of 20531.88 Cubic Meters out of 54013 Cubic meters has
been filled. The Project Engineer in his letter dated 27.07.2023
addressed to the contractor responsible for the earth filling at R
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 65 of 135
& R site has admitted that only 31% work has been completed.
The Respondents have not completed the works in relation to the
basic amenities and that the Collector has not issued the
Completion of Resettlement Work Certificate as per clause 8 of
the R & R Policy, 2006, which along with the clause 4 of the
resolution of the meeting dated 08.06.2023.
It is further stated in the reply affidavit that the
Respondents have stated that all the Appellants have been
allotted with plots in the resettlement site vide Plot Allotment
Letter dated 22.12.2019 but such statement is taken by the
Respondents only to cloud the judgment of this Court. In fact,
the Respondents have only allotted those plots on paper.
It is further stated that in the affidavit dated
04.07.2023 filed by the Respondents, it is stated that out of 102
Appellants, 21 Appellants have constructed houses and Appellant
No.80 has started living in the house constructed over the plot
allotted to him, but those 21 Appellants have recently started
construction which is not yet complete. Even if those
constructions would be completed, but they could not reside
there due to lack of basic civil infrastructure such as water
supply, drainage, electricity connection, roads etc. As far as
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 66 of 135
Appellant no.80 is concerned, he is unable to shift to his house
for the lack of the aforementioned facilities in the area.
It is stated in the reply affidavit that there are 15
plots including the land encroached by the NLS School, which
have not been made encroachment free. The Respondents have
also not cleared the encroachment made by the Police Garage
and Police Utility Centre situated at Plot No.121 and 122 which is
evident from the letter of Project Engineer (Civil), BBSRI OCP to
M/s. BMS Construction where it is clearly stated that only 26% of
the work is complete. Plot No.99 has a dilapidated building,
which was used as an Anganwadi has not been cleared from
encroachment and Plot Nos.100 to 105 which are yet to be
demarcated. The demarcation of such plots are dependent upon
completion work of the main drain and the main drain work has
come to stand still since 2016 due to the non-completion of the
land filling work. The stand taken by the Respondents that all the
plots in the Balanda R & R site are encroachment free from all
encumbrances, are not correct.
It is stated in the reply affidavit that the stand taken
by the Respondents that a majority of the Appellants are staying
in the quarters allotted to them by MCL as an alternative site in
lieu of the plots allotted to them is not correct, but the same has
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 67 of 135
been made to mislead this Court and cloud its judgment. In fact,
those quarters are allotted to the MCL employees as a course of
their employment but not as an alternative site in lieu of plots.
Those quarters are small in size and could not cater the
household goods, assets and cattle of the land oustees. Most of
the Appellants are farmers and have numbers of cattle and all
the family members are required to be fit in those tiny quarters
which were never meant to be an alternative site. Only six
numbers of families were provided Company‟s alternative
accommodation at the time of shifting of Panchayat Office and
Shiv Temple. The quarters which were provided by the
Respondents in Central Colony are in dilapidated condition and
MCL vide letter dated 14.09.2020 has already declared those as
'unsafe'. The House Building Assistance and other R & R benefit
including compensations and incentives are yet to be provided by
the Respondents for smooth relocation and resettlement of the
land oustees.
It is stated in the reply affidavit that though a portion
of the drainage work has been completed by the Respondents,
but the main drain is yet to be completed which is hindered by
the non-completion of land filling work and has come to a
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 68 of 135
standstill since 2016 and the development work is hindered due
to the said non-completion of the main drainage work.
It is further stated in the reply affidavit that the
Appellants have been provided with the Summary Report of the
Balanda R & R site filling dated 25.05.2023, which shows that
only a volume of 20531.88 cubic Meters out of 54013 cubic
meters has been filled till that date. The Project Engineer in his
letter dated 27.07.2023 addressed to the contractor responsible
for the earth filling at R & R site has admitted that only 31%
work has been completed. The Appellants being aggrieved by the
inaction of the Respondents have made a representation dated
21.07.2023 where the Appellants requested the General
Manager, Jagannath Area to complete the earth filling work
which shall ultimately assist in the execution of other works like
demarcation of plots, construction of roads, completion of
drainage work, supply of electricity and drinking water in the
area. The Respondents have not carried out any developmental
work since the month of March. The construction of roads,
completion of the provision of electricity connections, and
completion of main drain work is also being hindered by the non-
completion of filling of the low line area and the encroachment of
NLS School. The stand taken by the Respondents is that by
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 69 of 135
virtue of the MOU with RWSS, the pipeline laying work i.e.
5219.00 mtrs. is complete and 80% construction work of
underground reservoir and 50% of overhead tank has been
completed. In fact, the construction of the same is not being
conducted as per the Scope of Work & Technical Specification of
the work order and the quality of material used in the ESR, UGR,
OHR, Compound Wall and Pump House are below standard.
When the contractor was directed to work in accordance with the
plan, he stopped the work and since the month of March, there is
no progress in the said work. The Appellants have also informed
the Executive Engineer, Rural Water Supply and Sanitation
Department, Angul describing the irregularity in the construction
process through a letter dated 21.07.2023.
It is stated in the affidavit that the stand taken by
the Respondents is that the electrification work was outsourced
to Tata Power and when the same work could not be done due to
hindrance from the villagers of Hensamul, the TPCODL had sent
an email dated 06.05.2023 describing the cause of non-
completion of the electrification work wherein it was stated that
the same was due to non-clearance of the site. In fact, the stand
taken by the Respondents are misleading as the hindrance
caused is not by the Appellants but due to the encroachment of
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 70 of 135
NLS School which is situated in between the approved plan for
electrification.
It is stated in the affidavit that there was no
hindrance by the villagers in the Balanda R & R site and the
incident described in the said letters are prior to the Meeting
dated 08.06.2023 and nowhere there is mention about any
hindrance in the Minutes of Meeting where the Respondents were
directed to take steps to complete the work in order to provide
the basic amenities to the Appellants and other land oustees.
The villagers have never restrained the officials of Respondents
and they are not creating any hindrance in the development
works but the development work has been stopped since the
month of March. Being aggrieved by the actions of the
Respondents, the Appellants have also made a representation
dated 21.07.2023 to the Collector, Angul praying for the
implementation of the decisions taken in the meeting held on
08.06.2023. Pursuant to the letter of the Appellants, the letters
dated 27.07.2023 were issued which indicate that the
Respondents have not taken any steps and the stand taken by
the Respondents that the Appellants have already been given all
the basic amenities is incorrect and were made only to cloud the
judgment of this Court.
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 71 of 135
It is further stated in the reply affidavit that there
are 62 cases pending approval with the Respondents in respect
of employment and the same was also noticed in the meeting
dated 08.06.2023 where the Collector has directed the
Respondents to mitigate the grievances of all such people. All the
143 PDFs have been cooperating with the Officials of the
Respondents and they have already vacated a large area for
mining activities. The Appellants are always been eager to shift
to the Balanda R & R site, but due to lack of basic amenities,
they are not able to shift to the said site. The stand taken by the
Respondents that the lands shall be leased out in accordance
with the Ministry of Coal guideline dated 22.04.2022. In fact, the
said law is not applicable in the present case and the Appellants
are entitled under the R & R Policy, 2006.
It is stated in the affidavit that the Appellant No.80
renting out the house at R & R site is incorrect. The stand taken
by the Respondents is that a club house was constructed in the
year 2016 with all the basic facilities, in fact, the said club house
is in a dilapidated condition beyond repair and the execution of
electricity work has been hindered due to non-clearance of
encroachment by NLS School.
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 72 of 135
Appointment of Advocate Commissioner:
13. The Appellants filed an interim application i.e. I.A.
No.4823 of 2023 on 01.08.2023 for appointment of a
Commission for local inquiry in respect of status of the land as
provided as part of the rehabilitation package.
On 22.09.2023, this Court appointed an Advocate as
Commissioner for local inquiry to enquire into the following
aspects viz., (i) Whether the basic amenities have been
extended over the land proposed for the settlement or
rehabilitation; (ii) Whether the plots are demarcated by definite
boundaries; and (iii) Whether the land has been earmarked for
road and other community activities. It was further observed
that in such rehabilitation package, the road, electricity and
water supply including the drinking water shall have to be
provided, before the Appellants are asked to occupy the
demarcated plots for construction of their houses or shelters. It
transpired that dissatisfaction in respect of the proposed land
was on the non-availability of amenities. Till the inquiry is over,
this Court requested the counsel for both the parties to fully
cooperate with the Advocate Commissioner so that he could
prepare the inquiry report within a short time-frame and place it
before this Court. This Court also requested the Commissioner to
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 73 of 135
make his observations regarding the position of the village vis-a-
vis the mining operation that was carried out by MCL. This Court
also requested Advocate Commissioner to approach the
Collector, Angul for providing him a technical person to aid and
assist him at the time of his field inquiry and the Collector, Angul
was directed to depute a technical person, if requested by the
Commissioner.
Report of Advocate Commissioner:
14. Pursuant to the order dated 22.09.2023, the
Advocate Commissioner filed his report dated 30.10.2023 after
local inquiry, the relevant parts are extracted herein below:
''Field Visit:
1. The undersigned visited the village Hensamul
and the resettlement site near Balanda College
on 14.10.2023 along with officials of MCL, and
villagers of Hensamul including the Sarpanch.
The Sub-Collector, Angul as well as the District
Mining Officer, Angul were also in attendance
during the inspection.
Copies of the attendance sheets are
annexed herewith and marked as Enclosure-1.
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 74 of 135
2. Observations were taken in respect of each of
the 154 plots allotted to villagers of Hensamul.
Further, the undersigned took several
photographs of village Hensamul and the
rehabilitation site.
Copy of the plan map of the resettlement
site is annexed herewith and marked as
Enclosure-2.
Copies of the photographs of Hensamul
village are annexed herewith and marked as
Enclosure-3 Series.
Copies of the photographs of the
resettlement site are annexed herewith and
marked as Enclosure-4 Series.
Findings & Observations:
01. Electricity: Electric poles have been
erected in respect of all plots. However, some
electric poles have not been wired and some
others having wires are in a state of disrepair. It
was stated by the MCL authorities that the
repairing and stringing of wires can been
completed within a short period of a few days.
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 75 of 135
02. Water Supply: Community water tank is
still under construction. No water pipes have
been laid down for supply of water to the
individual plots. Presently, allottees are availing
water from two constructed wells and water
tanker services only for the purpose of
construction of houses. The water supply is
wholly inadequate and makes the entire colony
uninhabitable.
03. Sewerage and Drainage: All the plots
have been provided with drainage sewers which
are connected to a primary drain leading out of
the resettlement colony. Three plots have been
affected by waste water coming from the
neighbouring MCL rescue station. MCL
authorities stated that special drains will be
made for the said plots.
04. Plot Levelling: Several complaints were
received from allottees that the plots are not at
the same level as the road and considerable
investment had to be made towards levelling
and compacting the plots. Although several plots
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 76 of 135
did seem to be at a much lower level than the
road, large number of allottees have constructed
houses despite the same.
05. Plot Demarcation: Although MCL
Authorities stated that plots had been
demarcated back in 2014 but no such physical
demarcation (except one or two dilapidated
pillars) in respect of any of the plots was visible.
The plots can be identified only through use of
the resettlement colony plan map. It appears
that the allottees are well aware of the
demarcation since around 60 houses are under
different stages of construction.
06. Road Connection: All the plots are
connected by way of roads wide enough for
vehicles. Only those plots, which have been
encroached upon by the Nigamananda Little Star
School have no roads connected.
07. Community Centre/Club: The building
has been constructed. However, the same is
presently in a state of disrepair due to lack of
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 77 of 135
use. Several cracks have also developed along
the walls making the building unsafe.
08. School: The old Hensamul Upper Primary
+ High School has been shifted to an area 5 km.
from the Resettlement Colony at the instance of
the villagers of Hensamul. Besides, space has
been allotted for a school inside the
resettlement colony which is yet to be
constructed.
09. Clinic/Dispensary: Space has been
allotted for a clinic inside the resettlement
colony which is yet to be constructed.
10. Police: A police outpost is available
outside the entrance to the resettlement colony.
11. Religious Structures: Space has been
allotted for a temple inside the resettlement
colony which is yet to be constructed. A yajna
mandap has also been constructed inside the
colony. The old temple of the village has been
shifted near the new Hensamul Upper Primary +
High School at the instance of the villagers of
Hensamul.
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 78 of 135
12. Market Space: Space has been allotted
for a market inside the resettlement colony
which is yet to be constructed.
13. Park/Green Space: Separate spaces for
a playground and a park have been allotted
inside the resettlement colony which are yet to
be constructed.
14. Panchayat Office: Office of the Gram
Panchayat, Hensamul has been constructed next
to the new Hensamul Upper Primary + High
School, 5 km. from the rehabilitation site, at the
instance of the villagers.
15. Anganwadi Centre: Space has been
allotted for the centre inside the resettlement
colony which is yet to be constructed.
16. Kalyan Mandap: Space has been allotted
for a mandap inside the resettlement colony
which is yet to be constructed.
17. Village Pond: Already in existence inside
the colony.
18. Around 60 houses are in various stages of
construction in the resettlement colony but no
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 79 of 135
person is presently in habitation inside the
colony.
19. It may be noted that encroachment in the
form of the Nigamananda Little Star School
covers across 12 plots over which no amenities
or roads have been constructed. The issue
eviction of Nigamananda Little Star School was
pending adjudication before this Hon‟ble Court in
W.P.(C) No.8549 of 2019 which has been
disposed of vide order dated 09.10.2023.
20. Status of Village Hensamul: The village
is flanked on nearly all sides by the
Bhubaneswari OCP, Lingaraj OCP, and Ananta
OCP. The cliff edge of the mines is at a distance
of just 100 meters from the village. Although
several persons were seen in the village on
14.10.2023, the dense undergrowth inside the
village as well as the state of disrepair of the
buildings indicates that most of the village is in
a state of abandonment. Further, black coal dust
blankets and pollutes the area in and around the
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 80 of 135
village. It is imperative that the village may be
vacated at the earliest.
Conclusions:
01. Whether the basic amenities have
been extended over the land proposed for
resettlement or rehabilitation?
The reference may be answered in the
negative due to the complete inadequacy in
supply of water, and the electricity infrastructure
being in a state of disrepair.
02. Whether the plots are demarcated by
definite boundaries?
Although no physical demarcation is
visible on the ground, demarcation can be made
using the site map. Around 60 allottees have
constructed houses on that basis.
03. Whether the land has been earmarked
for road and other community activities?
The reference may be answered in the
positive. All plots, except the plots encroached
upon by the Nigamananda Little Star School are
connected by way of roads. Space has been
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 81 of 135
allowed for several community buildings which
are yet to be constructed.
04. Observations regarding the position of
the village vis-à-vis mining operations
carried out by MCL.
In light of the pollution, physical state of
the village, and the vicinity of mining
operations, it is imperative that the village may
be vacated at the earliest.‟‟
15. Pursuant to the aforesaid report dated 30.10.2023 of
the Advocate Commissioner, the Appellants filed an affidavit on
06.12.2023, wherein it is stated that some of the facts require
clarifications and some relevant facts are required to be brought
on record for the purposes of facilitating this Court in effectively
and completely adjudicating the dispute between the parties
which are as follows:
‟‟(i) In reply to para 1 of the 'Findings and
Observations' in the aforesaid report dated
30.10.2023, it is stated that though electricity
polls have been erected as stated by the learned
Advocate Commissioner, the wiring and
electricity connections are not provided and the
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 82 of 135
erection of electricity polls near most of the
plots have been done recently pursuant to the
appointment of the learned Advocate
Commissioner vide order dated 22.09.2023 by
this Court, but the work relating to the same is
far from over and the same is a major
impediment in the process of resettlement that
remains unaddressed by MCL;
(ii) In reply to para 3 of the „Findings and
Observations' in the aforesaid report dated
30.10.2023, it is stated that in respect of
sewerage and drainage, the primary drain has to
be completed for the drainage of wastewater
from the R & R site, but due to the
encroachment of NLS School, the said work has
come to a halt;
(iii) In reply to paras 4 and 5 of the „Findings
and Observations' in the aforesaid report dated
30.10.2023, it is stated that some land oustees,
who are financially sound, have started
construction on some of the plots by taking
personal loans from the Banks with higher
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 83 of 135
interest rates. The constructions on some of the
plots have been done over uneven land.
However, only 31% of Earth filling work has
been done as per the records of MCL which was
submitted before this Court in the previous
affidavits and which is also confirmed by the
learned Advocate Commissioner in his report.
It is further stated that the TAMDA Plan
for the resettlement site was approved on
05.12.2015, which has been produced by the
learned Advocate Commissioner at Enclosure-2.
Some of the Land oustees had started
construction over encroachment free portions of
the resettlement site in order to minimize the
displacement process in good faith, but most of
the plots could not be properly demarcated due
to encroachment by 250 numbers of
encroachers including NLS School. Though most
of the encroachments have been eventually
cleared, the encroachments by the NLS School,
one police garage and one old Anganwadi are
yet to be cleared.
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 84 of 135
As per the order of this Court dated
09.10.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No.8549 of 2019,
the eviction of NLS School is not possible till the
month of April 2024. Therefore, till the said
encroachments are cleared, the demarcation of
plots along with the provision of basic amenities
has come to a halt;
(iv) In reply to para 7 of the 'Findings and
Observations' in the aforesaid report dated
30.10.2023, It is stated that the quality of the
construction work made by MCL speaks for itself
as it is evident from the report of the learned
Advocate Commissioner;
(v) In reply to para 8 of the 'Findings and
Observations' in the aforesaid report dated
30.10.2023, it is stated that the UP school and
Panchayat High school has been shifted to the
area where other villagers of Hensamul
Panchayat are living. The said school has been
functioning for the entire Hensamul Grama
Panchayat. The said resettlement of UP School
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 85 of 135
and Panchayat High school are not part of the
resettlement of Hensamul village;
(vi) In reply to para 11 of the 'Findings and
Observations' in the aforesaid report dated
30.10.2023, it is stated that the Yagyan Mandap
which is shown in the report of the learned
Advocate Commissioner has been constructed
by the villagers on a temporary basis for Bhumi
Pujan Utsav by utilizing their own funds. The Old
Siva Temple which has been shifted near the
Hensamul Panchayat High School was the
worship place of whole Hensamul Panchayat;
(vii) In reply to para 14 of the 'Findings and
Observations' in the aforesaid report dated
30.10.2023, it is stated that shifting of the
Panchayat Office was a conscious decision of the
State Government and the role of MCL
Authorities in the said process is none;
(viii) In reply to para 17 of the 'Findings and
Observations' in the aforesaid report dated
30.10.2023, it is stated that though the learned
Advocate Commissioner has noted that there is
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 86 of 135
a village pond inside the colony, but there is no
pond inside the colony and the waste water
clogged inside the colony is due to non-
completion of main drain work. The water has
been clogged in the low line areas and
necessary steps are required to be taken to fill
those clogged areas with good earth before
allotment of plots;
(ix) In reply to paras 19 and 20 of the 'Findings
and Observations" in the aforesaid report dated
30.10.2023, it is stated that during the
pendency of the case, the villagers including the
Appellants have always cooperated to the MCL
management without any hindrance for the coal
production with a hope for early settlement of
rehabilitation and resettlement issues of the
village. As a result, the project is achieving its
annual target each financial year.
It is stated in the affidavit that learned Advocate
Commissioner after visiting the village and after considering the
aspects like pollution, physical state of the village and vicinity of
the mining operations, opined that the village might be vacated
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 87 of 135
at the earliest. In fact, the Appellants, though are eager to
vacate the village as soon as possible, are not able to shift to the
resettlement site as the resettlement site lacks basic amenities
like water, electricity etc. It is the mandate of law that no
physical displacement shall be made before the completion of
resettlement work approved by the RPDAC and the complete
physical displacement could be done only after issuance of
completion certificate by the Collector as per Para 7 clause (ii) of
the Odisha R & R Policy, 2006.
Highlights of reply affidavit filed by Respondents to the
Advocate Commissioner's report:
16. Pursuant to the aforesaid report dated 30.10.2023
submitted by the Advocate Commissioner, the Respondents filed
an affidavit on 17.06.2025, wherein it is stated that in pursuance
to the order dt.22.09.2023, the learned Advocate Commissioner
visited village Hensamul (Talasahi) and resettlement site near
Balanda College on 14.10.2023 along with villagers of Hensamul
(Talasahi) including the Sarpanch, Government officials and
officials of MCL and given certain observations:
Observations:
i. With regard to the observation made by
learned Advocate Commissioner, it is stated that
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 88 of 135
some electric poles could not have been wired due to
hindrance in the site. Moreover, on thirteen plots,
which was encroached by Nigamananda Little Star
School, electric poles and wires have not been
erected. In pursuant to the direction of this Court
dt.06.12.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No.9912 of 2024
and W.P.(C) No.9921 of 2024, MCL has evicted and
demolished the encroached area NLS school on
24.12.2024 and after eviction, MCL authorities has
issued the letters dt.07.01.2025 and 26.05.2025 to
the allottees to take over the possessions of thirteen
plots, but they are not showing interest to take
possession of the said thirteen plots.
So far as erection of electric poles and cable
wires in the rest part of the land including said 13
plots is concerned, the MCL authorities along with
authorities of Tata Power visited the spot on
12.06.2025 and demarcated the spot where the
electric poles have to be erected and as discussed
with Tata Power, all the pending works related to
erection of the electric poles and cable wires for all
the plots would be erected within one month. It is
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 89 of 135
stated that no cable wires are in a state of disrepair
as the cables used for wiring are of Aerial Bunch (AB)
cable, which are to be strengthened during
completion of the rest part;
ii. The observation of learned Advocate
Commissioner regarding water supply to the R & R
plots, it is stated that the overhead tank has already
been constructed and the same is functional. The
Superintending Engineer, RWS & S Division, Angul at
Talcher, vide its letter dt.10.06.2025 has informed to
the General Manager, Bhubaneswari Area stating
therein that rural piped water supply to R & R site for
village Hensamul (Talasahi), At-Koilanagar in front of
Balanda College has been completed and at the stage
of commissioning with the following details:
a. 2.0 lakh ltr. capacity 15 mtr staging ESR -
completed.
b. 3.0 lakh ltr. capacity UGR - completed.
c. Pump House - completed.
d. Staff Quarter - completed.
e. Compound Wall - completed.
f. Rising Main - completed.
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 90 of 135
g. Distribution system - completed.
h. External Electrification with 25 KVA transformer &
internal Electrification - completed.
The main water pipelines have already been
laid over the R & R site, the supply of water to the
individual plots/house could be provided through
Functional Household Tap Connection (FHTC) after
submission of necessary documents along with
applications by the Appellants to the office of RWS &
S Division, Angul, Talcher;
iii. The observation of learned Advocate
Commissioner regarding sewerage & drainage to the
R & R plots, it is stated that special drain has already
been constructed for taking out the waste water
coming from the neighbouring MCL rescue station of
the three plots;
iv. The observation of learned Advocate
Commissioner regarding plot levelling of the R & R
plots, it is stated that all the R & R plots have been
levelled to the road level including thirteen plots
which were encroached by NLS;
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 91 of 135
v. The observation of learned Advocate
Commissioner regarding plot demarcation of the R &
R plots, it is stated that there is no dispute regarding
demarcation of plots between the allottees and MCL
since several allottees (i.e. 60 nos.) have already
constructed their houses in the R & R site;
After eviction of NLS school, the MCL
authorities have demarcated thirteen plots by putting
cement pillars. Letters dt.07.01.2025 and
26.05.2025 have been issued to the respective
thirteen allottees to take over the possession of their
allotted plots, but till date, they are not showing
interest to take over the possession of the said plots;
vi. The observation of learned Advocate
Commissioner with regard to road connection of the
R & R plots, it is stated that concrete road connecting
to the individual plots have been completed except
the thirteen plots which was encroached by NLS
School.
It is stated in the affidavit that so far as other
development with regard to construction of balance concrete
road, Community Centre/Club. Primary Health Centre, Temple
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 92 of 135
(i.e., Maa Mangala and Maa Hingula Temple), Market Place,
Anganwadi Centre, Dolo Mandap, remaining main drain 90 m &
box culvert, Kothaghara are concerned, a tender has been
floated on 22.01.2025 and the said tender is with regard to
ancillary developments on the resettlement site and the
construction of the same would be completed by the time houses
are constructed by the Appellants over the R & R site.
It is further stated in the affidavit that all the
Appellants have been provided all the R & R benefits including
employment benefits. They have been allotted resettlement plots
at Balanda resettlement site and for temporary accommodation,
these Appellants have been provided company quarters/their
own accommodations, which has been given in details in affidavit
dated 12.01.2023 and they are also staying in these quarters
along with their families. They are deliberately not shifting to the
R & R site although the Appellants are serving in MCL since last
twelve years and so also staying in MCL quarters or self-
accommodation since last twelve years.
It is further stated in the affidavit that the learned
Advocate Commissioner has rightly observed that the village
Hensamul (Talasahi) is flanked on nearly all the sides by the
Bhubaneswari OCP, Lingaraj OCP and Ananta OCP and the cliff
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 93 of 135
edge of the mines is at a distance of just 100 Meters from the
village. From the paragraph 20 of the said report dt.30.10.2023,
it clearly reveals that villagers are not staying in the village
Hensamul (Talasahi) and all the villagers are staying in the
temporary accommodation provided by MCL or self-
accommodation. Some of the appellants i.e. more than 60 in
numbers have also constructed houses at the R & R site and the
Hensamul (Talasahi) is at the edge of mines and at any moment,
mining accident/untoward situation might happen if complete
village is not evacuated.
The Respondents have issued notice dated
12.06.2025 to many of the Appellants for acceptance of Ex-
gratia of Rs.5 Lakhs approved in favour of their children, who
were minor on the cut-off date of the acquisition of the land for R
& R benefits and also to vacate the premises by handing over the
possession of the vacated land to MCL and the Ex-gratia benefit
is beyond the R & R Policy 2006.
17. Pursuant to the notice dated 12.06.2025 issued by
the Respondents, the Appellants filed an interim application i.e.
I.A. No.2939 of 2025 with a prayer to restrain the Respondents,
MCL Authorities from evicting the Appellants from their
respective residential houses at village Hensamul (Talasahi) with
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 94 of 135
a further prayer to restrain them from taking any coercive action
against the Appellants till disposal of the writ appeal.
In the aforesaid interim application, the Respondents
intended to file objection and accordingly, this Court vide order
dated 19.06.2025 passed an order of status quo in respect of the
dwelling house in question as per Annexure-2 annexed in the
said interim application be maintained till the next date and the
status quo order was extended from time to time.
18. The Respondents filed reply to I.A. No.2913 of 2025
and I.A. No.2939 of 2025 filed by the Appellants, wherein it is
stated that the Appellants filed W.P.(C) No.21006 of 2014 with
the following prayers:
"(a) why the letter dated 31.07.2014 vide
Annexure-12 to the extent challenged in the writ
application, shall not be quashed;
(b) why the Opp. parties shall not be directed to
reinstate the services of the Petitioners without
attachment and imposition of any conditions and in
accordance with letter dated 09.07.2014 of the Sub-
Collector, issued in terms with the decisions taken in
the meeting dated 06.07.2014;
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 95 of 135
(c) why the Opp. parties shall not be directed to
not to take any coercive action against the
Petitioners till they are allotted plots physically in the
resettlement site."
It is further stated that so far as prayers in the
W.P(C) No.21006 of 2014 at Sl. No.(a) and (b) are concerned,
the same relate to the letter dated 31.07.2014 and the condition
stipulated under the said letter are beneficial to the Appellants
and were agreed upon by the Appellants as has been noted by
the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment.
It is further stated that in respect of prayer at Sl.
No.(b), the Appellants have contended that the Respondents be
directed to reinstate the services of the Appellants without
attachment and imposition of any condition in accordance with
letter dt.09.07.2014 of the Sub-Collector, in terms of the
decision taken in the meeting dt.06.07.2014. In that regard, it is
stated that all the Appellants have been reinstated and
consequential benefits have been given to them as stated in
letter dt.31.07.2014.
The aforesaid letter dated 31.07.2014 contained five
stipulations, which reads as follows:
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 96 of 135
"i) Re-instatement of all the terminated
employees without break in service and with
immediate effect;
ii) The villagers will not have to submit
affidavit for the same;
iii) MCL has already agreed for allotment of R
& R site situated in front of Balanda college as
has been decided in the PLRRC meeting on
19.07.2014. MCL will allot plots to villagers at R
& R site in front of Balanda College duly decided
by PLRRC after obtaining clearance from the
Govt. of India and diversion of forest, if
required. MCL management has already initiated
action before the appropriate authority for
allotment of plots;
iv) The villagers who are not having
company‟s accommodation will be allotted
company‟s quarters on priority basis and in
minimum possible time as decided in the Sub-
Collector‟s meeting on 06.07.2014;
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 97 of 135
v) MCL has also agreed to adjust the period
of absence due to termination from service with
payment of leave in credit of the individual."
So far as stipulation at Sl. No. (i) of the aforesaid
letter dated 31.07.2014 relating to reinstatement of all the
terminated employees without break in service and with
immediate effect is concerned, the same has been duly
implemented. So far as stipulation at Sl. No. (ii) is concerned,
i.e., the villagers would not have to submit affidavit for the
same, has not been insisted upon. So far as Sl. No. (iii) is
concerned, all the Appellants except Sl. Nos.29 and 34, namely,
Pratima Sahoo and Dasarathi Sahoo have been allotted plots. So
far as Sl. No. (iv) is concerned, it is stated that for 97 Appellants,
in addition to the allocation of the plots, MCL quarter
accommodation has been provided. So far as Sl. No. (v) is
concerned, it is stated that MCL has also agreed to adjust the
period of absence due to termination from service with payment
of leave in credit of the individual and the same also has also
been given effect to.
It is further stated that the land in question has
already been acquired and stands vested with MCL and any
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 98 of 135
unauthorised occupancy and use would seriously prejudice and
hamper the interest of the State and the economy as a whole.
It is further stated that out of 377 Project Displaced
Families (PDFs), 223 PDFs have opted for cash compensation of
Rs.6,32,000.00 paisa in lieu of Resettlement Plots and have
voluntarily vacated their lands, both agricultural and dwelling
house and given physical possession of the same to MCL and the
rest 154 PDFs have been allotted with the resettlement plots. All
the Appellants have been allotted the resettlement plots and only
Appellant no.34 has taken cash compensation of Rs.6,32,000.00
paisa in lieu of plot and Appellant no.29 is not eligible for
resettlement of plot.
It is further stated that the W.P.(C) No.21006 of
2014 was filed basically being aggrieved by the timeline
stipulated in the letter dated 31.07.2014, wherein the Appellants
were required to vacate the properties/land before 31.10.2024.
It is further stated that during the pendency of the
writ appeal, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed vide order
dated 22.09.2023 and was asked to submit a report on the
terms of reference. In pursuance to the aforesaid order
dt.22.09.2023, the learned Advocate Commissioner visited
village Hensamul (Talasahi) and resettlement site near Balanda
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 99 of 135
College on 14.10.2023 along with villagers of Hensamul
(Talasahi) including the Sarpanch, Government officials and
officials of MCL and filed his report giving certain observations.
It is stated in the reply that the interim applications
have been filed with artificial and expanded prayer to the effect
that minor children of some of the Appellants who have now
attained majority and hence entitled to employment and till such
time as the said appointment is given, there could be no eviction
and that providing employment to children of the Appellants, is
beyond the scope of the Writ Appeal.
The Additional Secretary to Govt. of Odisha, Revenue
and Disaster Management Department vide letter No.RDM-RRC-
CLRFIC-0002/2018-34288/R&DM dt.05.11.2019, issued a
clarification on the decision taken in the 10th RPDAC meeting in
respect of MCL projects of Angul District held on 15.05.2018. In
the said clarification letter dt.05.11.2019 at Sl. No.4 has clarified
regarding "Fixation of Cut-off date for providing R & R benefits to
the eligible PAFs in accordance with the amendment made by the
Govt. in Revenue and Disaster Management Department".
The Law Department has observed that the ORRP,
2006 came into effect from 14.05.2006 i.e., the date of its
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 100 of 135
publication in the gazette. In the said clarification, it has been
stated that-
" xxx xxx xxx
In this connection, Law department has further
observed that the purpose of declaring eligibility of R
& R benefits, Para 2(c) of the ORRP, 2006 that
determines the cut-off date has undergone
amendment vide resolution dt.15.12.2017. This
resolution has a prospective effect. Time and again,
the matter relating to the R & R benefits was placed
before the RPDAC which has issued guidelines to the
project proponent regarding expeditious grant of the
benefits. Earlier, it had fixed the date of passing of
the award as the cut-off date for R & R benefits. It
appears that pursuant to these guidelines, the
project proponent (here MCL Authority) has given
employment to the affected and displaced families.
Now, the question arises as to whether the
minor of the family which availed R & R benefits, on
becoming major after the cut-off date is entitled for
the R & R benefit in respect of the same project. The
answer is certainly "No" in as much as the family of
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 101 of 135
the minor having availed the benefits under the
policy, on attaining majority cannot constitute a
"separate family" within the meaning of the ORRP
especially when the lands for the purpose of the
benefits having already been acquired is no longer
available for consideration of R & R benefits."
It is stated in reply that in view of the above
clarification issued by the Govt. of Odisha, the present claim of
the Apellants to give employment to their children, who were
minor on the cut-off date i.e., 25.03.2007 and has attained
majority as on 01.01.2024, could not be entertained and the said
claim/prayer of the Appellants is liable to be rejected.
It is further stated that the cut-off for extending the
benefit of employment is 25.03.2007. Family members of the
Appellants, who were eligible as on the said date have been
provided with employment. In addition the above benefits, an
ex-gratia amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (rupees five lakh only) has
been offered to many of the Appellants and their claimants vide
notice dt.12.06.2025 for acceptance of Ex-gratia of rupees five
lakhs approved in favour of their children, who were minor on
the cut-off date of the acquisition of the land for R & R benefits
and also to vacate the premises by handing over the possession
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 102 of 135
of the vacated land to MCL and the Ex-gratia benefit is beyond
the R & R Policy 2006.
With regard to issuance of the compliance certificate
by the concerned Collector of the District as per Clause-7(ii) of
the Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy, 2006, it is stated that
the Collector, Angul had sent a letter dated 10.06.2025 to GM,
Bhubaneswari Area regarding submission of present status
report on completion of Balanda R & R site for resettlement of
154 PDFs from Hensamul (Talasahi) Basti and the GM,
Bhubaneswari Area has informed the Collector, Angul vide letter
dated 19.06.2025 about the status report on resettlement of 377
PDFs from Hensamul (Talasahi), wherein it is indicated that out
of 377 PDFs, 223 PDFs have opted for cash compensation in lieu
of resettlement plot and the balance 154 PDFs have been
allotted plots @ Ac.0.10 decimals of land to each PDF at R & R
site, Balanda, as per their own demand.
With regard to MCL extending house building
assistance of Rs.14,50,000/- and Rs.25,00,000/- to those
displaced families, who have opted for self-relocation is
misconceived and it is stated that the same has no application to
the present case.
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 103 of 135
In pursuance of the order dated 19.07.2010 passed
in SLP (C) No.6933 of 2007 by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, the
Claims Commission constituted for determination of
compensation and R & R benefits for the 14 villages only i.e.
Sardega, Gopalpur, Jhupurunga, Ratnansara, Tikilpara,
Bankibahal, Balinga, Kulda, Siarmal, Tumulia, Garjanbahal,
Bangurkela, Karlikachhar, Kiripsira and Laima (RF) in the district
of Sundargarh, Odisha. In the aforesaid villages, cut-off i.e.
September, 2010 has been fixed by the Hon‟ble Claims
Commission which has been approved by the Hon‟ble Supreme
Court for determination of the benefits. The Hon‟ble Supreme
Court vide its judgment dated 03.11.2022 has observed that as
far as the land owners, who cannot secure a plot, are concerned,
a lump sum compensation to the extent of Rs.25 lakhs should be
paid to them. It clearly reveals that all the land owners in the 26
villages are not entitled to Rs.25 lakhs. So far as Rs.14.50 lakhs
are concerned, the Hon‟ble Claims Commission enhanced the
house building assistance and the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has
observed the same in its judgment and no specific direction has
been given to that extent in the conclusion part of the Judgment.
The aforesaid 14 villages are special case under the supervision
of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court and judgment has been passed by
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 104 of 135
the Hon‟ble Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution
of India. It is stated that in view of the above, the Appellants are
not entitled to the benefits as per the village Gopalpur.
So far as non-receipt of any House Buildings
Assistance from MCL, it is stated that the House Buildings
Assistance to the tune of Rs.2,78,000.00 as per R & R Policy,
2006 has been sanctioned to all the PDFs and the same would be
disbursed, if the PDFs wants to avail the benefits with prior
application before shifting from their dwelling houses at
Hensamul (Talasahi).
With regard to existence of Govt. structures over plot
nos.99 and 100 at Balanda R & R Site, it is stated in the reply
that on the request of the villagers, the said Govt. structures had
not been demolished during demolition of 164 structures
encroached at the site in the year 2018 as the structure is an
Anganwadi Kendra and they requested that the Anganwadi
Kendra would be used for the benefits for the children of
Hensamul (Talasahi). If the village committee wants to demolish
the same, then after consultation with the District
Administration, the aforesaid structure would be demolished and
to allot the same to the allottees of Plot Nos.99 and 100 and if
the Appellants did not want to demolish the said Anganwadi
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 105 of 135
Kendra, then two plots @ Ac.0.10 Dec. each could be allotted
within the resettlement site.
With regard to safety of the villagers, it is stated that
the Commission has already submitted its report stating that the
village is flanked on nearly all sides by the Bhubaneswari OCP,
Lingaraj OCP and Ananta OCP and the cliff age of the mines is at
a distance of just 100 meters from the village. From the report of
the Commission, it is being confirmed that the village should also
be vacated from safety point of view.
19. On 25.07.2025, in the midst of hearing, a proposal
was floated by the learned Advocate General that the matter
could possibly be sorted out by way of amicable settlement
between the parties. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned to
facilitate the parties to explore the same.
It seems that a lengthy grievances/demands styled
as "Terms of Settlement" was placed by the Appellants on
08.08.2025 before the Respondents.
The Respondents filed objection dated 02.09.2025 to
the proposed terms of settlement dated 08.08.2025 submitted
by the Appellants, wherein it is stated that purely on
compassionate ground, the Respondents have addressed each
and every demand of the Appellants. The Appellants have
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 106 of 135
availed all the benefits under the Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Package and most of the land losers have vacated dwelling
houses in the villages under acquisition following the due process
of law under the CBA Act, 1957. All the statutory
benefits/compensation including the benefits under Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Scheme have been fully granted to the land
losers and that nothing remained to be paid to anyone of them.
It is further stated in the objection that the
compensation towards the land and the structures have been
paid to the Appellants and the building assistance has been
sanctioned for the Appellants towards shifting and construction
of houses. The area/resettlement site has been developed with
water supply and electricity connection along with other essential
amenities.
It is further stated in the objection that on
13.08.2025, the learned Collector & District Magistrate, Angul
has issued Certificate of Completion of the Resettlement and
Rehabilitation (R & R) of the Project Displaced Families of village
Hensamul (Talasahi) under the provisions of para 7 (ii) of the
Odisha Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy, 2006.
It is further stated in the objection that 377 persons
were displaced because of the acquisition and the compensation
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 107 of 135
has been paid since 2007 after passing of the award. Despite
availing all the benefits under law, the Appellants still litigate
with intention of obstructing the industrial activity, which is
detrimental to the growth of national economy.
It is further stated in the objection that taking a
compassionate view of the matter, though the Respondents had
expressed willingness to amicable settlement of the dispute and
a proposal was mooted but a lengthy grievance styled as "Terms
of Settlement" has been filed by the Appellants on 08.08.2025.
The unreasonable bargain of the Appellants is neither sanctioned
by law nor coming under the Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Scheme.
It is further stated in the objection that the writ
appeal is camouflaged to build pressure on a leading public
sector undertaking of the Country and to deter the development
of the area. Coal being a major raw material for production of
energy, the conduct and action of the Appellants need to be
reprimanded in the highest terms and pursuing a frivolous
litigation for last ten years despite availing all benefits is nothing
but an attempt to abuse the process of law and therefore, while
opposing the writ appeal in its entirety, the Respondents are not
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 108 of 135
in a position to accede to the so-called proposal for settlement
and therefore, the Writ Appeal should be dismissed.
Final Hearing dated 04.09.2025:
20. The matter was listed on 04.09.2025 and heard in
presence of Mr. S.P. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate along with
Mr. Soumya Mishra and Ms. Sakshi Rout, learned Advocates
appearing on behalf of the Appellants and Mr. K.M. Nataraj,
learned A.S.G.I., Mr. Pitambar Acharya, learned Advocate
General along with Mr. Rakesh Sharma, Mr. Soumyajit Pani and
Mr. Debaraj Mohanty, learned Advocates appearing on behalf of
the Respondents.
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Dey, Chief Manager (Mining)/Staff
Officer (L & R), Bhubaneswar Area, MCL and Mr. Abdaal M.
Akhtar, the Collector, Angul were also present in person on that
day.
Mr. S.P. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate appearing
for the Appellants filed an affidavit dated 04.09.2025 by way of
an objection to the affidavit dated 02.09.2025 filed by the
Respondents wherein it is stated that all the demands as raised
by the Appellants are well within the parameters laid down in the
R & R Policy, 2006 and para 8 (ii) of the R & R Policy, 2006
which states that no physical displacement shall be made before
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 109 of 135
completion of resettlement work as approved by RPDAC. The
certificate of completion of resettlement work would be issued by
the Collector. It is further stated in the affidavit that in the letter
dated 10.06.2025, the Collector & District Magistrate, Angul
sought for an update from the General Manager, MCL,
Bhubaneswari Area, Talcher regarding the status report on
completion of Balanda R & R site for resettlement of 154 PDFs
from Hensamul (Talasahi). In reply, the GM, MCL wrote a
vaguely worded letter dated 19.06.2025 stating, inter alia, that
no valid R & R demand is pending with the land acquisition
authority. Surprisingly, in the objection affidavit filed by MCL on
02.09.2025, a letter dated 13.08.2025 appears to have been
written by the Collector & District Magistrate, Angul addressed to
the GM, MCL, Bhubaneswari Area, Talcher wherein, a Certificate
of Completion of the Resettlement and Rehabilitation (R & R) of
the PDFs of village Hensamul (Talasahi) is stated to have been
issued.
It is further stated in the affidavit that it is not known
as to under what circumstances, the said Certificate is stated to
have been issued when the resettlement site is bereft of basic
necessities like water and electricity supply to the plots allotted
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 110 of 135
in favour of the Appellants and other PDFs of village Hensamul
(Talasahi).
It is further stated in the affidavit that having regard
to the fact that the Certificate of Completion of the Resettlement
work as mentioned under Para 7 (ii) of the R & R Policy relates to
the development of amenities/facilities at the resettlement site,
as mentioned under the provisions of the Third Schedule of the
Act, 2013, the Collector & District Magistrate, Angul could under
no circumstances whatsoever have issued the so-called
Certificate of Completion when there is absolutely nothing on
record to portray that the resettlement site has been developed
in terms of the facilities/amenities as provided under the
provisions of the Third Schedule of the Act, 2013, therefore, the
said letter dated 13.08.2025 is an act of conspicuous mala fides
and amounts to playing fraud on this Court. It is further stated
that the Certificate of Completion is an outcome of patent mala
fides and illegality, which has been created/manufactured by the
Collector & District Magistrate, Angul in order to subterfuge the
core issue involved in the captioned Appeal i.e. non-completion
of work qua development of amenities/facilities at the
resettlement site.
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 111 of 135
So far as non-allotment of company quarters to 25
numbers of PDFs among the Appellants as transit
accommodation is concerned, it is stated in the affidavit that out
of 102 Appellants (PDFs), 25 Appellants (PDFs) have not been
provided with company quarters as transit accommodation prior
to being directed to vacate their lands in the acquired area i.e.
Hensamul (Talasahi).
So far as House Building Assistance and Incentive in
lieu of displacement is concerned, it is further stated in the
affidavit that in terms of Para 7 (II)(f) of the R & R policy 2006,
each of the PDFs in the resettlement habitat shall be provided an
amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand only)
towards House Building Assistance. This is notwithstanding as to
whether such displaced family is settling in the resettlement
habitat or opting for self-relocation elsewhere.
By virtue of the 9th Biennial revision of Rehabilitation
Grants in Monetary Terms that came into operation vide
Resolution dated 18.11.2024 of the Revenue and Disaster
Management Department of Government of Odisha, the House
Building Assistance has been enhanced to Rs.3,39,383/- (Rupees
Three Lakhs Thirty Nine Thousand Three Hundred and Eighty
Three only). Having regard to the Maintenance Allowance for one
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 112 of 135
year @ Rs.4,525/- per month, Assistance of temporary shed @
Rs.22,626/- and Transport Allowance @ Rs.4,525/-, the total
Assistance comes to the tune of Rs.4,20,834/- (Rupees Four
Lakhs Twenty Thousand Eight Hundred and Thirty Four only).
So far as the incentive offered by MCL is concerned,
it was decided in the 12th RPDAC Meeting dated 31.08.2021 that
an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (rupees five lakh only) would be
paid to each of the PDFs along with other resettlement benefits
on submission of an affidavit by the PDFs for shifting within six
months from the date of receipt of the said amount and the
balance of Rs.5,00,000/- (rupees five lakh only) be disbursed by
MCL in favour of the PDFs after complete shifting of the village.
It is further stated in the affidavit that in the 13th
RPDAC meeting held on 15.02.2024, the earlier decision taken in
the 12th RPDAC meeting held on 31.08.2021 was modified to the
extent that as opposed to an incentive to the tune of
Rs.5,00,000/- (rupees five lakh only) being disbursed by MCL on
signing of a tripartite agreement with the PDFs and the
remaining to be disbursed to each of the PDFs upon shifting of
the entire village at one go, it was decided that pursuant to an
initial incentive of Rs.5,00,000/- (rupees five lakh only) having
been disbursed by MCL after execution of the tripartite
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 113 of 135
agreement, the remaining Rs.5,00,000/- (rupees five lakh only)
was to be disbursed to the PDFs, who demolish their house in
the acquired area and shift from the village, irrespective of
whether or not the entire village shifts from the said acquired
area.
Having regard to the decision taken in the 12th and
13th RPDAC meetings held on 31.08.2021 and 15.02.2024
respectively, MCL has offered incentive @ Rs.10,00,000/- to
PDFs in village Hiloi, which is apparent from a letter written by
MCL to one Satyaban Pradhan of the said village, calling him
upon to receive the said incentive along with other resettlement
benefits by demolishing the dwelling house and handing over
physical possession to MCL, particularly, the decision taken
during the said RPDAC meetings have also been mentioned in
the said letter, which depicts and demonstrates the fact that MCL
has implemented the decision taken in the said meetings.
It is further stated in the affidavit that MCL in the
village of Gopalpur has extended benefits qua House Building
Assistance together with incentives to the tune of Rs.14,50,000/-
as well as lands measuring an area of Ac.0.10 decimals to PDFs
of the said village and an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- have been
provided to those PDFs, who have opted for self-relocation, but
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 114 of 135
the Appellants in the present writ appeal are yet to receive their
House Building Assistance as well as the incentive as decided in
the RPDAC meetings.
It is further stated in the affidavit that MCL has
resorted to an allegation during the pendency of the Writ Appeal
regarding the impediments in the mining operations caused by
the non-cooperation of the Appellants (PDFs) in moving out of
the acquired area, which is claimed to have caused them colossal
losses. A bare reading of the financial highlights over the past
ten years would depict that MCL has overachieved its target of
production, dispatch and sale of coal and as a matter of fact,
MCL has achieved more than 100% than what it ought to have
achieved as per their target. MCL has also achieved a Year-on-
Year growth of about 10% in 2024-25 compared to the last year.
In the affidavit, reliance was placed on the judgment
in the case of Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. & Anr. -Vrs.- Mathias
Oram & Ors. reported in A.I.R. 2022 S.C. 5723, wherein the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that since the Orissa Resettlement
and Rehabilitation Policy does not indicate specific provisions
with respect of facilities and amenities that are to be developed,
therefore, the provisions of the Third Schedule to the R & R Act,
2013 which outlines 25 heads and indicate amenities, have to be
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 115 of 135
fulfilled by the project proponent as part of the resettlement
work which reads as follows:
"63. The Orissa Resettlement and Rehabilitation
Policy does not indicate specific provisions with
respect to facilities and amenities that are to be
developed. Consequently, the provisions of the
Third Schedule to the R & R Act, 2013 which
outlines 25 heads and indicate amenities such as
roads in the villages, appropriate drainage,
provision for safe drinking water for each family,
provision for drinking water for cattle, grazing
land, reasonable number of fair price shops,
community or panchayat ghars; village level
post offices, seed-cum-fertilizer storage
facilities, provision for basic irrigation facilities,
transportation to the newly resided areas, burial
or cremation grounds, facilities for sanitation,
including individual toilet points, individual
single electricity connections, anganwadi,
providing child nutritional services, school, sub-
health centres within two kilometer range,
Primary Health Centres in terms of the Central
Government norms, play grounds for children,
one community centre for every 100 families,
places of worship, separate land for traditional
tribal institutions, etc. In addition, forest dweller
families must be provided with their forest on
non-timber produce close to the new places of
resettlement. Furthermore, appropriate security
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 116 of 135
arrangements are to be provided and service
centre in accordance with the prescribed norms
also has to be provided.
64. In the present case, the materials on record
show that those resettlement sites have been
earmarked and are at different stages of
development. The mandate of the law i.e., the
Third Schedule to the R & R Act, 2013 is very
clear in that all the amenities to the extent they
conform to the population in each of the
resettlement areas have to be provided. In
these circumstances, there may be no escaping
these obligations. The State Government,
through its appropriate agencies should draw up
a comprehensive plan for creation of such
amenities and ensure that they are functional so
as to complete rehabilitation and resettlement in
a meaningful manner."
Relevantly in the said affidavit, in Paragraph 10, the
Appellants precisely stated the terms of settlement/demands
raised by them which are as follows:
"10. That, the deponent seeks leave of this
Hon‟ble Court to place on record the following
facts/clarification in respect of the Terms of
Settlement for better appreciation of this
Hon‟ble Court:
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 117 of 135
(a) That, the Appellants humbly state and
submit that the following demands as raised by
the Appellants are required to be brought to the
knowledge of this Hon‟ble Court:
(i) Expeditious and timely completion
of work at the Resettlement Site as per
the approved plan, preferably within a
period of six months;
(ii) To provide company quarters as
Transit Accommodation for 27 Nos. of
Appellants within a period of one
month, and subsequent to which, the
said Appellants shall vacate their lands
in the acquired area within a period of
one month hence;
(iii) Expeditious disbursement of House
Building Assistance @ Rs.3,39,383/-
(Rupees Three Lakhs Thirty-Nine
Thousand Three Hundred Eighty-Three
only) to the Appellants as provided in
the 9th Biennial Revision of
Rehabilitation Grants in Monetary
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 118 of 135
Terms vide Resolution dated
18.11.2024 of the Revenue and
Disaster Management Department of
Government of Odisha;
(iv) Incentive for early and expeditious
displacement of PDFs @ Rs.10,00,000/-
(Rupees Ten Lakhs only) as per the
decision taken in the 12th RPDAC
Meeting dated 31.08.2021 as well as
the 13th RPDAC Meeting dated
15.02.2024."
21. The Respondents filed an affidavit on 04.09.2025,
wherein it is stated that all the land losers have got the land
acquisition compensation in terms of the applicable law. Besides,
in terms of the policy, the eligible persons have been allotted
sites. It is further stated that the resettlement site work is in
advanced stage. In response to the precise demands raised in
the affidavit filed by the Appellants, the MCL Company
acknowledged the demands as mentioned in Paragraph-10(a)(i)
and (ii). It is stated that an earnest attempt would be made to
meet the demand of the land losers. So far as Paragraph-
10(a)(ii) is concerned, it is stated that out of all the persons in
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 119 of 135
terms of the list enclosed to the affidavit dated 04.09.2025, only
25 are stated to be not granted the alternative accommodation,
who would be provided with alternative accommodation within a
period of one month subject to their eligibility. The Appellants
would be given all the benefits in accordance with law subject to
their eligibility in terms of the law as applicable. It is stated in
the affidavit dated 04.09.2025 that the writ appeal be disposed
of by vacating the interim order to enable the Respondents to
proceed with hassle free mining operation in the site in question.
Mr. Nataraj, learned A.S.G.I. and Mr. Acharya,
learned Advocate General also fairly submitted that in so far as
the demand nos.(i) and (ii) are concerned, the same would be
accepted as it is and in regard to the other demands of the
appellants, the same would be given as per their entitlements of
the Appellants in accordance with the R & R Rules, 2006 on the
basis of their individual entitlement/eligibility.
After the judgment was reserved on 04.09.2025, the
matter was subsequently mentioned by the learned Senior
Advocate appearing for the Appellants for listing for certain
clarification and accordingly, it was taken up on 10.09.2025. The
apprehension expressed by the learned Senior Advocate
appearing for the Appellants is that so far as conditions nos.(i)
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 120 of 135
and (ii) are concerned, the affidavit filed by the Respondents on
04.09.2025 does not expressly mention as to whether those two
conditions would be scrupulously complied with or not.
Mr. Nataraj, learned ASGI and Mr. Pitamber Acharya,
learned Advocate General appearing for the Respondents
submitted that there is no quarrel or confusion in so far as
condition nos.(i) and (ii) are concerned. The affidavit may not be
happily worded, but the Respondents shall stick to the
undertaking given regarding the compliance of condition nos. (i)
and (ii). The Respondents shall comply with the same in letter
and spirit as has been deliberated and agreed upon during the
course of hearing on 04.09.2025.
Scope of intra-court appeal:
22. We have carefully considered the submissions
advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the
documents available on record.
Let us first examine the power of the Division Bench
while entertaining a Letters Patent Appeal against the
judgment/order of the learned Single Judge. This writ appeal has
been nomenclatured as an application under Article 4 of the
Orissa High Court Order, 1948 read with clause 10 of the Letters
Patent Act, 1992. Letters Patent of the Patna High Court has
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 121 of 135
been made applicable to this Court by virtue of Orissa High Court
Order, 1948. Letters Patent Appeal is an intra-court appeal
where under the Letters Patent Bench, sitting as a Court of
Correction, corrects its own orders in exercise of the same
jurisdiction as vested in the Single Bench. (Ref: (1996) 3
Supreme Court Cases 52 : Baddula Lakshmaiah -Vrs.- Shri
Anjaneya Swami Temple). The Division Bench in Letters
Patent Appeal should not disturb the finding of fact arrived at by
the learned Single Judge of the Court unless it is shown to be
based on no evidence, perverse, palpably unreasonable or
inconsistent with any particular position in law. This scope of
interference is within a narrow compass. Appellate jurisdiction
under Letters Patent is really a corrective jurisdiction and it is
used rarely only to correct errors, if any made.
In the case of B. Venkatamuni -Vrs.- C.J.
Ayodhya Ram Singh reported in (2006) 13 Supreme Court
Cases 449, it is held that in an intra-court appeal, the Division
Bench undoubtedly may be entitled to reappraise both questions
of fact and law, but entertainment of a letters patent appeal is
discretionary and normally the Division Bench would not, unless
there exist cogent reasons, differ from a finding of fact arrived at
by the Single Judge. Even a Court of first appeal which is the
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 122 of 135
final Court of appeal on fact may have to exercise some amount
of restraint. Similar view was taken in the case of Umabai
-Vrs.- Nilkanth Dhondiba Chavan reported in (2005) 6
Supreme Court Cases 243. In the case of Commissioner of
Income Tax -Vrs.- Karnataka Planters Coffee Curing Work
Private Limited reported in (2016) 9 Supreme Court Cases
538, it is held that the jurisdiction of the Division Bench in a writ
appeal is primarily one of adjudication of questions of law.
Findings of fact recorded concurrently by the authorities under
the Act concerned (Income Tax Act) and also in the first round of
the writ proceedings by the learned Single Judge are not to be
lightly disturbed.
Thus, a writ appeal is an appeal on principle where
the legality and validity of the judgment and/or order of the
Single Judge is tested and it can be set aside only when there is
a patent error on the face of the record or the judgment is
against established or settled principle of law. If two views are
possible and a view, which is reasonable and logical, has been
adopted by a Single Judge, the other view, howsoever appealing
may be to the Division Bench; it is the view adopted by the
Single Judge, which would, normally be allowed to prevail. If the
discretion has been exercised by the Single Judge in good faith
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 123 of 135
and after giving due weight to relevant matters and without
being swayed away by irrelevant matters and if two views are
possible on the question, then also the Division Bench in writ
appeal should not interfere, even though it would have exercised
its discretion in a different manner, were the case come initially
before it. The exercise of discretion by the Single Judge should
manifestly be wrong which would then give scope of interference
to the Division Bench.
23. The prayer in the writ petition filed by the Appellants
precisely was to quash the letter dated 31.07.2014 issued by
Respondent no.1 to the extent challenged in the writ application
and for a direction to the Respondents to reinstate the Appellants
in the services without attachment and imposition of any
conditions and in accordance with letter dated 09.07.2014 of the
Sub-Collector, Talcher issued in terms of the decisions taken in
the meeting dated 06.07.2014 held in presence of the residents
of village Hensamul (Talasahi), the Director Technical, MCL,
Burla and MLA, Talcher on selection of resettlement site and on
the issue of termination of 127 employees of MCL. The further
prayer in the writ petition was to direct the Respondents not to
take any coercive action against the Appellants till they are
allotted plots physically in the resettlement site.
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 124 of 135
The decisions which were taken in the aforesaid
meeting dated 06.07.2014 were as follows:
(i) MCL authorities will reinstate the retrenched
employees by 10.07.2014. There will be no break of
service;
(ii) Collector, Angul will be requested to convene
the meeting of the PLARC at the earliest to discuss
and finalise in principle the rehabilitation site;
(iii) The MCL will start taking measures towards
rendering the site hassle-free from legal perspective;
(iv) The MCL authorities will arrange interim
accommodation as would be decided by the PLRAC
after the site is finalised in principle and on extension
of such facilities, the villagers will start vacating the
homestead land.
The learned Single Judge found that the lands of the
Appellants had been acquired and that they had already been
paid the land acquisition compensation amount besides
employment being provided to them and that they have also
been provided with alternate accommodation in the quarters of
the MCL. MCL authority submitted before the learned Single
Judge that they were under process of allotting the alternate
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 125 of 135
sites and the same was being delayed for some technical
reasons. The learned Single Judge directed the State authority to
co-operate with the MCL authority in the matter of finalization of
the alternate sites under the particular rehabilitation package.
The Court found that MCL Company was in urgent need of
mining in the locality, which was definitely in the larger interest
of the country. The Court further held that the Appellants have
no right to claim that they would vacate the homestead lands
under their occupation only after they were provided with
alternate house sites. Accordingly, the writ petition was
dismissed vide impugned judgment and order dated 13.01.2015.
The Writ Appeal was filed not only to set aside
judgment and order dated 13.01.2015 passed by the learned
Single Judge but also for a direction to the Respondents not to
take any coercive action against the Appellants by evicting them
from their dwelling houses and/or by terminating their
employment, till they are physically allotted plots in the
resettlement site.
From the affidavit filed by the Respondents in the
Writ Appeal, it appears that most of the Appellants have
constructed houses over the plots allotted to them at R & R site
and the Appellants are also staying in the company quarters
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 126 of 135
provided by MCL. Due to acquisition of village Hensamul
(Talasahi), 321 employments/cash in lieu of employments have
been provided by MCL as per Orissa R & R policies prevalent at
the relevant point of time. It is further stated in the affidavit that
there is no provision to issue ROR under CBA Act acquired lands
and as per guidelines issued by the Ministry of Coal vide letter
No.43022/1/2020-LAIR dated 22.04.2022, the land could be
leased out to land oustees for 99 years. As per clause 4(5)(e) of
the said guidelines, the allotted plots would be leased out in
favour of respective allottees only after shifting of the Appellants
to the site and as such, plot allotment orders have already been
issued in their names. All the Appellants were allotted quarters
for temporary accommodation till they shift to the R & R site.
The quarters were allotted as per their eligibility and they have
shifted to their allotted quarters.
The Advocate Commissioner indicated in his report
that some electric poles have not been wired and that some
other electric poles were having wires in a state of disrepair and
that no water pipes had been laid down for supply of water to
the individual plots and that the water supply is wholly
inadequate and made the entire colony uninhabitable. The report
further indicated that three plots had been affected by waste
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 127 of 135
water coming from the neighbouring MCL rescue station and MCL
authorities stated that special drains would be made for the said
plots. The report further indicated that there were some issues
relating to levelling and compacting the plots and that though
the plots had been demarcated way back in 2014 but no such
physical demarcation (except one or two dilapidated pillars) in
respect of any of the plots was visible.
The Appellants filed affidavit indicating therein that
though they were eager to vacate the village as soon as possible,
but are not able to shift to the resettlement site as the
resettlement site lacks basic amenities like water supply,
electricity etc. which were required to be provided to them as per
rehabilitation package before they are asked to occupy the
demarcated plots for construction of their houses or shelters.
Respondents filed affidavit indicating thein that MCL
has evicted and demolished the encroached area NLS School on
24.12.2024 and after eviction, MCL authorities issued the letters
dt.07.01.2025 and 26.05.2025 to the allottees to take over the
possessions of thirteen plots. All the pending works relating to
erection of the electric poles and cable wires for all the plots
would be erected within one month. The overhead tank has
already been constructed and the same is functional. The
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 128 of 135
Superintending Engineer, RWS & S Division, Angul at Talcher,
vide its letter dt.10.06.2025 has informed the General Manager,
Bhubaneswari Area stating therein that rural piped water supply
to R & R site for village Hensamul (Talasahi) in front of Balanda
College has been completed and at the stage of commissioning.
The main water pipelines have already been laid over the R & R
site and the supply of water to the individual plots/house could
be provided through Functional Household Tap Connection
(FHTC) after submission of necessary documents along with
applications by the Appellants to the office of RWS & S Division,
Angul, Talcher. Special drain has already been constructed for
taking out the waste water coming from the neighbouring MCL
rescue station to the three plots. All the R & R plots have been
levelled to the road level including thirteen plots which were
encroached by NLS School. It is further stated that there is no
dispute regarding demarcation of plots between the allottees and
MCL since several allottees (i.e. 60 nos.) have already
constructed their houses in the R & R site. After eviction of NLS
school, the MCL authorities have demarcated thirteen plots by
putting cement pillars. Tender with regard to ancillary
developments on the resettlement site has been floated on
22.01.2025 and the construction of the same would be
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 129 of 135
completed by the time houses are constructed by the Appellants
over the R & R site. The Appellants have been provided all the R
& R benefits including employment benefits. They have been
allotted resettlement plots at Balanda resettlement site and for
temporary accommodation, the Appellants have been provided
company quarters/their own accommodations. All the Appellants
have been reinstated and consequential benefits have been given
to them as stated in letter dt.31.07.2014. It is further stated
that Hensamul (Talasahi) is at the edge of mines and at any
moment, mining accident/untoward situation might happen if
complete village is not evacuated.
It further appears from the affidavit filed by the
Respondents that so far as the stipulation at Sl. No.(i) of the
letter dated 31.07.2014 relating to reinstatement of all the
terminated employees without break in service and with
immediate effect is concerned, the same has been duly
implemented. So far as stipulation at Sl. No.(ii) is concerned,
i.e., the villagers would not have to submit affidavit for the
same, has not been insisted upon. So far as Sl. No.(iii) is
concerned, all the Appellants except Sl. Nos.29 and 34, namely,
Pratima Sahoo and Dasarathi Sahoo have been allotted plots. So
far as Sl. No.(iv) is concerned, it is stated that for 97 Appellants,
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 130 of 135
in addition to the allocation of the plots, MCL quarter
accommodation has been provided. So far as Sl. No.(v) is
concerned, it is stated that MCL has also agreed to adjust the
period of absence due to termination from service with payment
of leave in credit of the individual and the same also has also
been given effect to.
The affidavit filed by the Respondents further indicate
that out of 377 Project Displaced Families (PDFs), 223 PDFs have
opted for cash compensation of Rs.6,32,000.00 paisa in lieu of
Resettlement Plots and have voluntarily vacated their lands, both
agricultural and dwelling houses and given physical possession of
the same to MCL and the rest 154 PDFs have been allotted with
the resettlement plots. Compensation for land and the structures
have been paid to the Appellants and the building assistance has
been sanctioned for the Appellants towards shifting and
construction of houses.
On 13.08.2025, the Collector & District Magistrate,
Angul has issued Certificate of Completion of the Resettlement
and Rehabilitation (R & R) of the Project Displaced Families of
village Hensamul (Talasahi) under the provisions of para 7 (ii) of
the R & R Policy, 2006.
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 131 of 135
The Appellants finally filed an affidavit raising four
precise demands, inter alia, firstly, expeditious and timely
completion of work at the Resettlement Site as per the approved
plan preferably within a period of six months; secondly, to
provide company quarters as transit accommodation for 27 Nos.
of Appellants within a period of one month, subsequent to which,
the said Appellants shall vacate their lands in the acquired area
within a period of one month.
In response to such precise demands raised by the
Appellants, the Respondents filed an affidavit on 04.09.2025
acknowledging both the demands. It is stated therein that an
earnest attempt would be made to meet the demand of the land
losers. So far as second demand of the Appellants is concerned,
it is stated that out of all the persons in terms of the list enclosed
to the affidavit dated 04.09.2025, only 25 are stated to be not
granted the alternative accommodation, who would be provided
with alternative accommodation within a period of one month
subject to their eligibility.
From the affidavit filed by the Respondents, it
appears that all the land losers have got the land acquisition
compensation in terms of the applicable law. Besides, in terms of
R & R Policy, the eligible persons have been allotted plots in front
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 132 of 135
of Balanda College for construction of R & R Colony. It is further
stated that the resettlement site work is in advanced stage.
Learned counsel for the Respondents also specifically stated that
in so far as the first and second demands of the Appellants are
concerned, the same would be accepted as it is. In regard to the
other demands of the appellants, the same would be given as
per the entitlements of the Appellants in accordance with the
Odisha R & R Policy, 2006 on the basis of their individual
entitlement/eligibility. When the matter was listed again on
10.09.2025 on being mentioned, the learned counsel for the
Respondents reiterated that the Respondents shall stick to the
undertaking given regarding the compliance of first and second
demands of the Appellants.
Conclusion:
24. In view of the foregoing discussions, since during
pendency of the Writ Appeal, the Respondents have taken
effective steps not only in reinstating all the terminated
employees without break in service; allotment of the plots to the
eligible Appellants at the R & R site; providing company quarters
as transit accommodation; taking expeditious steps in making
the R & R site habitable for which several allottees i.e. 60 nos.
have already constructed their houses in such site and that the
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 133 of 135
Respondents have assured this Court to undertake further
expeditious and timely completion of work at the resettlement
site as per the approved plan preferably within a period of six
months and to provide company quarters as transit
accommodation to the rest of the deserved Appellants within a
period of one month, no further order is required to be passed in
the case. This Court expects that the Respondents shall not take
any coercive action against the Appellants till the rest of the
Appellants (which according to the Appellants are twenty-five in
numbers), are provided with alternative accommodation within a
period of one month subject to their eligibility. All the Appellants
shall vacate their homestead lands and houses in the acquired
area within a month thereafter so that the Respondent Company
can physically occupy the same for continuation of mining
operation of Bhubaneswari OCP in a peaceful manner. The
Respondent Company shall carry out expeditious and timely
completion of all the left out work at the resettlement site as
undertaken. This Court sincerely believes that haves should
follow their Dharma and extend the helping hands to the have-
nots with compassion and on the basis of ethics, responsibility
and commitment to the common good keeping ego aside.
Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 134 of 135
Before parting with the case, we record our
unreserved and uninhibited appreciation for the positive and
responsive attitude, the efforts, the intelligence and the maturity
shown by Mr. S.P. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate for the
Appellants and Mr. K.M. Nataraj, learned Additional Solicitor
General of India and Mr. Pitamber Acharya, learned Advocate
General appearing for the Respondents for their able and
valuable assistance without which it would have been extremely
difficult to settle the long drawn legal battle between the parties.
Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is disposed of with a
positive hope that the entire dispute shall be put a quietus.
............................
S.K. Sahoo, J.
S.S. MISHRA, J. I agree.
............................ S.S. Mishra, J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 24th September 2025/RKMishra Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RABINDRA KUMAR MISHRA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 24-Sep-2025 10:44:55 Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 135 of 135