Dismissed

Kanhu Charan Pallai v. State of Orissa

Orissa HC25 Aug 2023WP(C)/12054/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners seeking compassionate appointment and ex-gratia after land acquisition were dismissed. Court held they lost only agricultural land not homestead, received ex-gratia, and got housing under Indira Awas Yojana, thus claims no longer subsisting.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; claim for compassionate appointment and additional ex-gratia rejected as claims no longer subsisting.

Kanhu Charan Pallai Vs State of Orissa — Land Acquisition | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P (C) No. 12054 of 2016

¶3

Kanhu Charan Pallai & Anr.

¶4

….. Petitioners Mr. J.K. Mishra-2, Advocate

¶5

Vs.

¶6

State of Orissa & Ors.

¶7

….. Opposite Parties Mr. L. Samantaray, AGA (O.Ps.1, 2 & 5) Mr. G.S. Das, Advocate (O.Ps.3 & 4)

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

¶10

ORDER 25.08.2023

¶11

Order No.

¶12

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶13

¶14

Heard Mr. J.K. Mishra-2, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; Mr. L. Samantaray, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties and Mr. G.S. Das, learned counsel appearing for opposite parties no.3 & 4.

¶15

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking direction to the opposite parties to provide service in favour of petitioner no.2 under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme and pay Rs.2,36,000/- (now it is Rs.2,80,000/-) as ex-gratia as displaced family (Bistapita family), like others within a stipulated period.

¶16

Mr. J.K. Mishra-2, learned counsel appearing for the

¶17

petitioners contended that the Government acquired land in the district of Bhadrak for construction of Railway line from Bhadrak to Dhamara for Dhamara Port Trust in the year 2006. As a consequence thereof, the land of the petitioners measuring an area Ac.1.50 dec. was acquired. Accordingly, due compensation was determined and the same was paid to the petitioner. It is further contended that since the thatched house of the petitioners was acquired from the aforesaid plot, petitioners should be treated as displaced persons, for which petitioner no.2 is eligible to get compassionate appointment under the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy of the Government. As the petitioners were not declared as displaced persons and of them, petitioner no.2 was not given appointment, they have approached this Court by filing this writ petition.

¶18

Mr. L. Samantaray, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties, referring to paragraph-6 of the counter affidavit filed by opposite parties no.2 & 5, contended that admittedly the land of the petitioners has been acquired for construction of Railway line from Bhadrak to Dhamara as per requisition made by IDCO, Bhubaneswar for Dhamara Port Company Limited, Bhadrak and compensation to the tune of Rs.2,33,615/- has been paid to them. As per land records, the classification of the acquired land is Sarada Jala Do Fasali-II, Rasta and Chaka. Therefore, the petitioners lost only agricultural land for the Project, but no homestead land or residential house. Since the petitioners have not been identified as displaced persons by the enquiring

¶19

officer, the benefit of Rehabilitation & Resettlement Assistance and Employment cannot be granted. But subsequently, as per recommendation of the Sub-Collector, Bhadrak, Dhamara Port Company Ltd. has provided an exgratia amount of Rs.1,04,400/- and Rs.49,937/- to the petitioners, vide Cheque No.103386 dated 02.05.2016 and Demand Draft No.454668 dated 13.06.2008 respectively, receipt of which has been acknowledged by the petitioners. Thereby, any other benefits, as claimed in the writ petition, are not admissible to the petitioners.

¶20

Mr. G.S. Das, learned counsel appearing for opposite parties no.3 & 4 reiterated the contentions raised by learned Additional Government Advocate and contended that the Dhamara Port Company Ltd. has provided an ex-gratia amount of Rs.1,04,400/- and Rs.49,937/- to the petitioners, vide Cheque No.103386 dated 02.05.2016 and Demand Draft No.454668 dated 13.06.2008 respectively. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to get any other benefits, as claimed in the writ petition.

¶21

Considering the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, admittedly the land of the petitioners has been acquired for construction of Railway line from Bhadrak to Dhamara as per requisition made by IDCO, Bhubaneswar for Dhamara Port Company Limited, Bhadrak and compensation to the tune of Rs.2,33,615/- has been paid to them. Claiming higher compensation, the petitioners had approached the Civil Court by filing L.A. Case Nos.234 of 2006, 235 of 2006 and 236 of

¶22

2006 and the same were disposed of on the basis of compromise. Petitioner no.1 had also approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.32 of 2014, which was withdrawn unconditionally by petitioner no.1. After repeated insistence of the petitioners, as per the decision of the 5^th RPDAC held on 25.09.2015, the district administration decided an ex-gratia settlement of Rs.1,04,400/- and the said amount was paid to petitioner no.1 by the Dhamara Port Company through Special Land Acquisition Officer vide Cheque No.103386 dated 02.05.2016 and the same has been acknowledged by the petitioners. It is stated by the opposite parties that since the petitioners have lost their agricultural land and no residential house, therefore, the petitioners are the land loser but not displaced persons. It has also been stated that now the petitioners have been provided with a house under the “Indira Awas Yojana”. Therefore, the claim made by the petitioners is no more subsisting. So far as the claim of the petitioners for Rehabilitation and Resettlement benefit is concerned, it is open to them to pursue their remedy before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.

¶23

With the above observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶24

(DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE

¶25

Signature Not Verified

¶26

Digitally Signed Signed by: ALOK RANJAN SETHY Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Alok Location: Orissa High Court Date: 28-Aug-2023 12:49:28

¶27

(M.S. RAMAN) JUDGE

Kanhu Charan Pallai v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanhu Charan Pallai v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Milton Industria Vs State and Ors.

Purna Chandra Behera Vs State of Odisha

Latika Dalai Vs Cda,Cuttack

Dhurba Ch.Ojha Vs State

Kasti Turuk Vs State of Orissa

Laxmikanta Mallick Vs State of Odisha