Disposed

Seshadeb Dehury v. Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd.

Orissa HC10 Aug 2023CONTC/493/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt application filed by petitioners alleging non-compliance of an earlier order directing rehabilitation benefits, the High Court examined the respondent's explanation regarding employment eligibility and found the General Manager had complied with the earlier order through show-cause notice and hearing. Consequently, the contempt proceeding was dropped.

What the court decided

AI extract

Seshadeb Dehury Vs Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. — Writ and Judicial Review | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CONTC No. 493 of 2022

¶2

Seshadeb Dehury & Another

¶3

….. Petitioners Mr. S.K. Gadanayak, Adv.

¶4

Vs.

¶5

Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., Talcher and others

¶6

….. Opposite Parties

¶7

Mr. S.D. Das, Sr. Adv. along with Mr. Haripada Mohanty, Adv.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI

¶10

MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

¶11

ORDER

¶12

10.08.2023

¶13

Order No. This matter is taken up by hybrid mode. 06.

¶14

Heard Mr. S.K. Gadanayak, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S.D. Das, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. Haripada Mohanty, learned counsel for the opposite parties.

¶15

This application has been filed alleging non-compliance of the order dated 04.01.2021 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 23387 of 2022, by which this Court disposed of the writ petition directing opposite party no.2-General Manager, MCL, Hingula Area to reconsider the claim of the petitioners, since their 100% land have been acquired by the opposite parties and petitioner no.2 has not been rehabilitated in lieu of such acquisition and that it is open to the petitioners to adduce the evidences and produce the supporting materials before opposite party no.2 with regard to their claim. Opposite party no.2 shall consider all those materials in accordance with the guideline issued by the authority for rehabilitation and resettlement of the displaced persons having acquisition of 100% of the land. This Court also fixed the date of appearance of the petitioners before the opposite party no.2 on

¶16

Page 1 of 3

¶17

20.01.2021 and directed opposite party no.2 to carry out the aforesaid order within four weeks. It is contended that the said order of this Court has not been complied with.

¶18

Pursuant to notice, opposite parties have filed show cause notice, wherein it has been specifically stated that the petitioner no.1 and his second son, petitioner no.2 appeared before the General Manager, Hingula Area on 15.01.2021. The elder son of the petitioner no.1, namely, Babila Dehury was given employment in the year 2000 as Category-B land oustee nominee taking cut-off date as 27.03.1996 in the 1^st phase acquisition. As his second son petitioner no.2 was minor on the cut-off date, he was not eligible for employment as per RR Policy, Govt. of Odisha. In the second phase acquisition, the petitioner no.1-Seshadeb Dehury lost his agriculture land and Gharabari land and structure which was constructed over other’s land. Therefore, the case of petitioner no.2 may be considered for employment after all other claimant of the village are satisfied as per the clarification issued vide letter no.14284 dated 10.04.2007 issued by the Revenue and Disaster Management Department. The petitioner no.2 was minor on the cut-off date adopted for the villages for providing employment, as per the clarification dated 05.11.2019 issued by the Revenue and Disaster Management Department and, therefore, the benefit has not been given to him. As such, the petitioner no.1 could not adduce any evidence as directed by this Court, for which the claim made by him was rejected. Thus, the General Manager has complied with the order passed by this Court by giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner no.1 and his son on 15.01.2021.

¶19

Page 2 of 3

¶20

However, the petitioners have filed reply to the above show cause reply stating that they are entitled to the benefit and, as such, allegation has been made that opposite party no.2-General Manager has not passed order in compliance of the order passed by this Court.

¶21

In any case, since the General Manager, Hingula Area has complied with the order passed by this Court by disposing of the grievance of the petitioners, the contempt proceeding is hereby dropped. However, if the petitioners are not satisfied with the reasons assigned by the opposite party no.2, it is open to them to approach the appropriate forum ventilating their grievance in

¶22

accordance with law.

¶23

Ashok

¶24

Ashok (DR. B.R. SARANGI)
JUDGE
(M.S. RAMAN)
JUDGE

¶25

Signature Not Verified

¶26

Digitally Signed Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 10-Aug-2023 16:53:51

¶27

Page 3 of 3

Seshadeb Dehury v. Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Seshadeb Dehury v. Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gopinath Rana Vs N.Thirumala Naik

Anita Choudhary Vs Vijay Amruta Kalunge, IAS

M/S.Kalinga Foods and Beverages Private Limited Vs Sanjay Kumar Singh,Ias

Anjani Sales Corpn. Vs S.T.O.,Cuttack

Ankush Prasad Hota Vs State of Odisha

Nanda Jhodia Vs T. Ao, R.D.C., Southern Divn., Berhampur