Allowed

Kumuda R.Pattnaik v. State and Ors.

Orissa HC4 Oct 2023WP(C)/2896/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa directed the State to pay Rs. 4,38,603.80, kept in civil deposit since 1999, to the petitioner along with 9% interest per annum within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to disburse Rs. 4,38,603.80 plus 9% per annum interest within six weeks.

What the court decided

Kumuda R.Pattnaik Vs State and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 2896 of 2011

¶3

Kumuda R. Patnaik

¶4

Petitioner

¶5

Mr. Ashish Mishra, Advocate on behalf of Mr. S. Das, Advocate Vs.

¶6

State of Odisha and others

¶7

….. Opposite Parties

¶8

Mr. A.K. Mishra, AGA

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

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

¶11

ORDER

¶12

04.10.2023

¶13

Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶14

1. Heard Mr. Ashish Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶15

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking direction to opposite parties to finalize the fresh proposal reducing the area of Ac. 1.24 decimal of the petitioner’s property from the land acquired for construction of the approach road and high level bridge on river Mahanadi at village-Tutursinga of Boudh district as admitted in the letter dated 16.07.2003 vide Annexure-1 and to direct the opposite parties not to evict the petitioner from the property for which no compensation is paid till date.

¶16

Mr. Ashish Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is the owner of Plot No.1290 measuring an area 0.44 decimal; Plot No.1291 measuring an area 0.34 decimal and Plot No.1292 measuring an area 0.46 decimal, i.e. in total an area of Ac.1.24 decimals of village-Tutursinga, PS/Dist- Boudh, which were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for public purposes i.e. construction of high level bridge over river Mahanadi and approach road to Boudh-Sonepur National Highway (NH-57) at mouza Tutursinga near Boudh. Even

¶17

Page 1 of 4

¶18

though such acquisition was made, the petitioner has not been paid the compensation. Subsequently on 16.07.2003 the Executive Engineer, Phulbani (R&B) Division addressed a letter to the petitioner stating therein that the portion of land has not been used for construction of approach road and the Collector has advised for filing fresh proposal reducing the area and taking further necessary action at their end. It is further contended that in spite of such letter being issued by the Executive Engineer, no action has been taken. As a consequence thereof the petitioner is deprived of the benefit of utilization of the land, which is said to have been acquired by the opposite parties. It is contended that if the land is not required for which it has been acquired, the same should have been resumed in favour of the petitioner. Without resorting to the provisions contained under the Land Acquisition Act, the State is holding the said land for no reason. Consequently, the benefit out of the land is not being utilized by the petitioner. If the land is not being utilized by the authority and is kept idle, both the State as well as the petitioner are not being benefited. Thereby, it is prayed that resumption proceeding may be started, so that the petitioner can get the land for his utilization.

¶19

Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State contended that there is no question of resumption of land in favour of the petitioner rather the land is now required for the purpose of expansion of road. According to him, even though the land has been acquired by following due procedure of law and due compensation has been determined, since the petitioner did not receive the same in spite of notice, the compensation amount has been kept in civil deposit, which is still lying there. It is also contended that notice has been issued to the petitioner, but he has not received the notice nor turned up to receive the compensation on the plea of status quo order has been passed by this Court in Misc. Case No. 6588 of 1999 arising out of W.P.(C) No. 7068 of 1999. He further contended that pursuant to the status quo order, even though the State authorities have diverted the road, still then, the land in question is required, for which the question of resumption does not arise.

¶20

Page 2 of 4

¶21

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, it appears that the Government of Odisha vide Notification No.46691 dated 26.06.1997 acquired a total area of 18.65 decimal of land including the case land of petitioner appertaining to Plot No.1290 measuring an area 0.44 decimal; Plot No.1291 measuring an area 0.34 decimal and Plot No.1292 measuring an area 0.46 decimal, i.e. in total an area of Ac.1.24 decimals of village-Tutursinga, PS/Dist- Boudh for public purposes i.e. for construction of high level bridge over river Mahanadi and approach road to Boudh-Sonepur National Highway (NH57) at mouza Tutursinga near Boudh. The total land required for the aforesaid purpose is Ac.18.65 out of which an area of Ac.17.50 is private land and Ac.1.15 is Govt. Land. Accordingly, requisition was submitted by the Executive Engineer (R & B, Phulbani) for acquisition of land. Out of the total private land, an area of Ac.1.24 decimal i.e. the case land recorded in the name of the petitioner and his father on rayati status comes under the purview of acquisition. It is also revealed that notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquisition of case land including other required lands had been duly published by the Govt. of Odisha in the Official gazette as well as in local daily newspaper i.e. “The Dharitri” and “Dainik Asha”. Publication of the said notification had also been made in village Tutursinga by beating of drum on 08.01.1998. Besides, declaration under section 6 (1) had been published in official gazette and daily news papers in accordance with law. Earlier the petitioner had filed a writ petition bearing O.J.C. No. 7068 of 1999 to release his property from acquisition, but by virtue of a status quo order passed in Misc. Case No. 6588 of 1999 arising out of OJC No. 7068 of 1999, the payment of compensation and taking over of possession could not be completed. Be that as it may, the said writ petition has already been disposed of vide order dated 09.12.2016 and, as such, no interim order is continuing. Even though the letter was issued by the Executive Engineer on 16.07.2003, the same was not acted upon by the State, since the compensation amount had already been determined and kept in the civil

¶22

Page 3 of 4

¶23

deposit. Similarly, it is the contention of the learned State Counsel that in spite of notice being issued to the petitioner, he did not turn up to receive the compensation. However, the same was disputed by the petitioner. This Court is not going to decide such controversy.

¶24

Since the land has already been acquired and compensation amount has already been determined to the tune of Rs.4,38,603.80 as agreed to by learned counsel for the parties and the same is kept in the civil deposit, it is open to the State Authorities to disburse the said amount in favour of the petitioner. Since the compensation amount has been kept in the civil deposit with effect from 1999 and in the meantime 24 years have been passed, the said amount be disbursed in favour of the petitioner along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of such deposit till the date of actual payment, within a period of six weeks hence.

¶25

With the aforesaid observation and direction the writ petition

¶26

stands disposed of.

¶27

Arun

¶28

(DR. B.R. SARANGI)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
(M.S. RAMAN)
JUDGE

¶29

Signature Not Verified

¶30

Digitally Signed Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Designation: ADR-cum-Addl. Principal Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court Date: 05-Oct-2023 13:19:29

¶31

Page 4 of 4

Kumuda R.Pattnaik v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Kumuda R.Pattnaik v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sadananda Jena Vs Prem Chand Choudhury, I.A.S.

Sudhakar Rout Vs a.O,Central Bank of India, Regional Office,Bbsr

Sudhakar Rout Vs a.O.Central Bank of India