Orissa High Court
Madhu Murmu & Ors vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite ... on 30 August, 2023
Bench: B.R. Sarangi, Murahari Sri Raman
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P (C) No.25998 of 2023
Madhu Murmu & Ors. ..... Petitioners
Mr. S. Bhuyan, Advocate
Vs.
State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties
Mr. H.M. Dhal, AGA
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
ORDER
30.08.2023 W.P.(C) No.25998 of 2023 And I.A. No.12410 of 2023 Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
12. Mr. S. Bhuyan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners undertakes to deposit the deficit Court Fees of Rs.18/- by tomorrow (31.08.2023).
3. Heard Mr. S. Bhuyan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. H.M. Dhal, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties.
4. The petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 22.06.2023 passed in Misc. Case No.13 of 2023 under Annexure-11, by which opposite party no.2- Collector, Mayurbhanj, in compliance of the order dated 10.03.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.5695 of 2023, 2 has rejected the representation/objection filed by the petitioners to drop the proposal of establishment of Rungta Steel Pvt. Ltd. in their village Anandpur.
5. Mr. S. Bhuyan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that earlier the petitioners had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.5695 of 2023 challenging the action of the opposite parties with regard to allotment of land to M/s. Rungta Metals Pvt. Ltd. for industrial purposes and the said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 10.03.2023 directing the Collector, Mayurbhanj to consider the representation filed by the petitioners within a period of three months. It is contended that in compliance of the order dated 10.03.2023, opposite party-2-Collector, Mayurbhanj has rejected the representation, vide order dated 22.06.2023 under Annexure-
11. It is further contended that the Collector, Mayurbhanj, while rejecting the representation of the petitioners, found that no rule has been notified by the Government of Odisha regarding implementation of Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Area) Act (PESA Act) in the State till date and that on the basis of the report submitted by the Tahasildar, Rairangpur, the PESA Act is not implemented in the district of Mayurbhanj and as per the provisions of Acticle-244(1) and Fifth Schedule of the Constitution of India, the G.P. resolution for establishment of Rungta Steel Pvt. Ltd in Mouza-Kantabani (part), Anandapur, Dandbose (part) has been obtained and that the Resettlement & Rehabilitation along with compensation will be made to the affected families as per OFRCTLARR Act, 2013 paying attention to the provisions of the Fifth Schedule of the 3 Constitution. Therefore, it is contended that such finding of the Collector, Mayurbhanj is absolutely an outcome of non- application of mind, inasmuch as once Mayurbhanj district has been declared a scheduled area, as per Fifth Schedule of the Constitution of India, PESA Act will automatically apply. Thereby, non-implementation of PESA Act is absolutely arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the provisions of law. It is further contended that the Tahasildar, Rairangpur has given a wrong report, on the basis of which the Collector, Mayurbhanj has arrived at such a finding. It is further contended that the village-Anandpur is the birth place of great scholar like Pandit Raghunath Murmu, who is the founder of Santali Language and every year Santali people across the country gather there to observe the birth and death of such a great person. In the event the said village is acquired for the purpose of establishment of Rungta Steel Pvt. Ltd., it will lose its sanctity. Apart from that, it is contended that the finding arrived at by the Collector, Mayurbhanj that the rulings cited by the petitioners have no relevance to the fact and circumstances of the case is not applicable to the case of the petitioners. Therefore, the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon Samatha v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1997 SC 3297 and Orissa Mining Corporation v. Union of India and Ors (the Vedanta-Niyamgiri Judgment), 2013 (6) SCR 881. It is contended that without adhering to the said judgments, the Collector, Mayurbhanj has passed the impugned order dated 22.06.2023 under Annexure-11.
6. Issue notice to the opposite parties.
47. Let six extra copies of the writ petition be served within three days on learned Additional Government Advocate, as he appears for opposite parties no.1 to 6 to enable him to obtain instructions or file counter affidavit.
8. Requisites for issuance of notice to opposite parties no.7 to 9 by speed post shall be filed within three days. Office shall send notice to the said opposite parties fixing a short returnable date.
9. As an interim measure, this Court directs that the parties shall maintain status quo on the land in question till 12.09.2023.
(DR. B.R. SARANGI)
JUDGE
Alok (M.S. RAMAN)
JUDGE
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ALOK RANJAN SETHY
Designation: Secretary
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court
Date: 30-Aug-2023 16:33:04