Gopal Saran Pallai Vs Union of India

¶1

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CU TTACK Date: 13-Mar-2025 20:05:20

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶3

W.P.(C) No. 2067 OF 2020

¶4

Gopal Saran Pallai …. Petitioner Mr. Amitav Tripathy, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

Union of India and others …. Opp. Parties Mr. Mahendra Kumar Pradhan, Senior Panel Counsel, Union of India (For Opposite Party No.1)

¶7

None (for Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3-NHAI)

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA

ORDER

Order No.

13.03.2025

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶15

Heard Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for the Petitioner.

¶16

None appears for the NHAI/Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3, although they are represented by learned counsel. Office note indicates that AD from Opposite Party No.4-Contractor is back after valid service. Hence, notice on Opposite Party No.4 is treated to be sufficient. None represents Opposite Party No.4.

¶17

Petitioner in this Writ Petition prays for a direction to the Project Director, National Highways Authority of India Project Implementation Unit, 303, Utkal Signature, 3^rd Floor, NH-5, Pahala, Bhubaneswar (for brevity ‘NHAI’) (Opposite Party No.3) to disburse the amount of compensation for excavation of earth from his land, which has been deducted from the IPC of Opposite Party No.4-Contractor, as per the

¶18

Page 1 of 5

¶19

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CU TTACK Date: 13-Mar-2025 20:05:20

¶20

direction of this Court in W.P.(C) No.16105 of 2008 disposed of on 11^th October, 2012.

¶21

Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that NHAI through Opposite Party No.4-Contractor unauthorizedly excavated earth from his land as well as similarly situated farmers for extension and expansion of National Highway. Request of the Petitioner and similarly situated persons to the Contractor not to raise earth from their paddy filed went in vain. Hence, they filed W.P.(C) No.16105 of 2008 challenging the inaction of the NHAI in illegally excavating earth/fertile soil from the paddy field of the Petitioners therein. This Court, vide order dated 11^th October, 2012, disposed of the said writ petition with the following observation and direction.

¶22

“Having regard to the fact that the earth was excavated from the agricultural fields of the petitioners for the purpose of formation of National Highway, the contractor is responsible to pay the excavation of earth at the prevailing Government rate.

¶23

This Court vide its order dated 8.8.2012 directed the learned Government Advocate to take instruction regarding the Government rate in relation to the cubic meter of earth excavated from the petitioners' land. On the bare instruction analysis copy of the documents for earth excavation is annexed by the State Government. It is stated that 1:19.50 per cubic meter of land must be made with regard to the quantity of earth excavated by opposite party no.7. In this regard the spot inspection of the petitioners' land would be made by the Executive Engineer of Road Division in the presence of -opposite party no.7 and the petitioners. He is directed that after taking measurement of the petitioners' land he shall calculate the compensation amount at the rate of Rs.119.50 per cubic meter and the same shall be paid to the petitioners-Farmers.

¶24

Opposite party no.7 is at liberty to place additional demand to the National Highways for the purpose of payment the said earth has been excavated from the

¶25

Page 2 of 5

¶26

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CU TTACK Date: 13-Mar-2025 20:05:20

¶27

petitioners' land for the purpose of formation of National Highways. With the said liberty to opposite party no.7, the writ petition is allowed.

¶28

The entire exercise must the completed by the Executive Engineer of the concerned Road Division within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. After such cultivation within one week, the entire value of the excavated earth shall be paid to the petitioners' within an interest of 8% per annum from the date of excavation. Interest @ 8% till compensation after determination 9% if not paid within one week after determination.”

¶29

Accordingly, the earth excavated from the land of the Petitioner was measured by the concerned Tahasildar and compensation was computed by the Project Director, NHAI. When the compensation was not paid, the mother of the Petitioner along with other co-sharer(s) filed CONTC No.1268 of 2013. Upon receipt of notice from this Court in the aforesaid Contempt Petition, a joint site verification was made on 28^th August, 2015 in presence of Executive Engineer, Ganjam R and B Division-II, Project Director along with representative of the Petitioner as well as other similarly situated affected persons. Accordingly, the compensation was assessed for illegal excavation of earth from the land of the Petitioner and similarly affected persons at Rs.29,78,846/-. The same was deducted from the IPC of the Contractor/Opposite Party No.4, but the same was not paid to the Petitioner, who is stated to have been authorized by his family members to receive the compensation. In the meantime, the Opposite Party No.4 filed W.P.(C) No.19182 of 2015 challenging deduction of compensation from its IPC. The said writ petition was

¶30

Page 3 of 5

¶31

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CU TTACK Date: 13-Mar-2025 20:05:20

¶32

permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to the Contractor /Opposite Party No.4 to file a better petition vide order dated 10^th December, 2019. But no writ petition has yet been filed pursuant to the liberty granted, as submitted by Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for the Petitioner. It is submitted that the compensation so recovered from the IPC of the Contractor is still lying with NHAI.

¶33

Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel further drew attention of this Court to the counter affidavit filed by NHAI, wherein, they have stated that NHAI is ready and willing to pay the said amount to the the Petitioner, if the Contractor does not claim refund of the said amount deducted from the IPC.

¶34

Since none appears on behalf of the NHAI and Opposite Party No.4, this Court is not in a position to ascertain as to whether Opposite Party No.4 has any objection to disbursement of the compensation amount to the Petitioner. However, in absence of any materials to the contrary, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no objection from any corner for release of the amount deducted from the IPC of the Contractor-Opposite Party No.4 to which, the Petitioner is otherwise entitled to for the illegal excavation of earth from his land.

¶35

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the compensation amount in respect of the land of the Petitioner so recovered from the IPC of Opposite Party No.4 be released in his favour as early as possible preferably

¶36

Page 4 of 5

¶37

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CU TTACK Date: 13-Mar-2025 20:05:20

¶38

within a period of four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶39

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

¶40

s.s.satapathy

¶41

(S.K. Mishra) Judge

¶42

Page 5 of 5

Gopal Saran Pallai v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopal Saran Pallai v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pramod Kumar Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Bharat Bhushan Panda Vs State of Odisha

M/S.Indoo Holiday Innpltd Vs a.O.Punjab National Bank

Pravat Bhoi Vs State of Odisha

Authorised Officer, Canara Bank, Arm Branch, Cuttack Vs State of Odisha

Authorised Officer, Canara Bank, Arm Branch, Cuttack Vs State of Odisha