Orissa High Court
Sri Labanya Bhoi vs Union Of India And Others .... Opp. ... on 14 September, 2021
Author: B. P. Routray
Bench: B. P. Routray
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.13668 of 2013
Sri Labanya Bhoi .... Petitioner
Mr. Laxman Pradhan, Advocate
-versus-
Union of India and others .... Opp. Parties
Mr. P. K. Parhi, ASGI
CORAM:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
Order No. 14.09.2021
04. 1. The Petitioner is the son of late Sri Panibudu Bhoi whose land was acquired for an Ordnance factory. He is basing his claim for employment under the rehabilitation package on an "A" class displaced card that was issued in favour of his late father way back in 1997. A copy thereof has been enclosed with the petition.
2. The Petitioner's father is stated to have expired on 23rd January, 2002. The Petitioner attained majority on 10th February, 2008. He is stated to have been thereafter running from pillar to post to get a legal heir certificate. That was made available on 20th July, 2012. It is only thereafter that the Petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Cuttack with O.A. No. 251 of 2013.
Page 1 of 4// 2 //
3. By the impugned order dated 26th April, 2013 the CAT has rejected O.A. No.251 of 2013 on the ground that the claim of the Petitioner was highly belated.
4. In response to the petition, Opposite Party Nos.1, 2 and 3 have filed a counter affidavit stating in paragraph-5 that initially the number of families displaced and left homeless on account of the project was arrived at after consultation with the Government of Orissa as per the Rehabilitation Scheme. Initially the number was identified as 1020 families and later on revised to 1030 families. This was consequent upon a direction issued by this Court in 2001 in O.J.C. No.2362 of 1999. It is explained that the Land Acquisition Authority i.e. State Government arranged for acquisition of private land from different categories of land holders. While the owners of agricultural land were compensated by the Central Government through State Government at the rate fixed by them, homestead lands were taken against compensation and with a scheme of rehabilitation package. In terms of the said package the list of 1030 displaced families was made. There was no categorization of Card 'A" and Card 'B' holder.
5. It is further explained in paragraph-7 that under the existing scheme of Rehabilitation, a tabulation of Listed Displaced Persons (LDP) was prepared by the State Government and concurred with by the Government of India. There was no categorization of Card holders as Card 'A' and Card 'B'. The Page 2 of 4 // 3 // existing Scheme was applicable to 1030 LDPs as jointly finalized by the State Government and Government of India. Since the name of the Petitioner/his family did not figure in the above list of 1030 displaced persons, he was not entitled to any relief including employment under the said Scheme of Rehabilitation.
6. In similar circumstances, when one Sri Daitari Mahar filed W.P.(C) No.4768 of 2003, the said writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 27th February, 2012 after noticing that his name did not find place in the list of 1020 families identified by the State Government as displaced persons.
7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner harps on the fact that the Petitioner's father had been issued a Class 'A' displaced card and that this was sufficient proof of this entitlement to employment as part of rehabilitation package.
8. It is explained by the Opposite Parties in the counter affidavit, to which incidentally no rejoinder has been filed, after the list of displaced persons was prepared the question of Card 'A' and Card 'B' holder did not arise and was not relevant. The fact remains that the Petitioner's father did not figure in the list 1030 displaced families and was therefore entitled only to land acquisition compensation and not any benefit under the rehabilitation package.
Page 3 of 4// 4 //
9. In that view of the matter, the Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned order of the CAT. The petition is dismissed.
(Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice ( B.P. Routray) Judge KC Bisoi Page 4 of 4