Bikram Dalei Vs State of Odisha

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ petition as well as documents annexed thereto.

¶16

The present writ application has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer for a direction to the Opposite parties to release the balance amount of ex-gratia compensation amount of Rs.85,100/- in favour of the petitioner and to extend all other benefits as has been declared by the State Government through the Revenue & Disaster Management Department and Special Relief Commissioner so far the victims of the cyclonic storm

¶17

Page 1 of 6.

¶18

“ Fani ” are concerned.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset contended that entire costal region of Odisha bore the brunt of the cyclone storm “ Fani ” on 03.05.2019. As a result of which, although the entire costal bench of Odisha was affected, however, Puri district suffered the worst consequences. He further contended that in the said super cyclone, the residential house of the present petitioner was severely damaged. Thereafter, the State Government declared ex-gratia house building assistance of Rs.95,100/- to all the persons whose houses were severely damaged in the cyclone.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that several surveys were conducted by the State Government Officers as well as the District Administration to assess the extent of damage caused to the properties of the people living in the area affected by cyclone “ Fani’ . Finally, the State Government came up with a list of the affected persons on 15.05.2019. Such list includes the name of the present petitioner along with other affected persons. On the basis of the aforesaid list prepared by the State Government Officers, the petitioner is entitled to the ex-gratia house building assistance of Rs.95,100/-. On 20^th August, 2019, the petitioner received a sum of Rs.10,000/- as initial amount of ex-gratia compensation. However, the balance amount of Rs.85,100/- has not been released in favour of the present petitioner. Although the

¶21

Page 2 of 6.

¶22

petitioner approached the authority on several occasions, however they had not paid any heed to the grievance of the present petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that similarly situated other persons have received the full amount of the compensation. Thus, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ application. Challenging the inaction of the State-Opposite Parties on the ground of discrimination and arbitrary conduct while disbursing the ex-gratia compensation in favour of the petitioner and similarly situated any other persons.

¶23

In course of his argument learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that similarly situated persons, whose name appeared in the said list, and who had received Rs.10,000/-, had approached this Court for sanction and disbursal of the balance amount of Rs.85,100/- by filing W.P.(C) No.25400 of 2024. A coordinate bench of this Court, vide order dated 01.11.2023, while disposing of the writ application directed that the petitioners in that case deserve to get the balance amount of Rs.85,100/-. Accordingly, the Opposite parties were directed to release such compensation amount within a period of one month.

¶24

The aforesaid order passed by the learned coordinate bench was assailed before the Division Bench of this Court in a writ appeal bearing W.A. No.636 of 2024 by the State-Opposite Parties. The Hon’ble Division Bench, vide order dated 02.07.2024 disposed of the writ appeal confirming the order

¶25

Page 3 of 6.

¶26

passed by the learned Single Judge. While disposing of the writ appeal, the Hon’ble Division bench had opined that “the inspection conducted on 23.06.2021 to assess the damage caused to the house of the respondent is irrelevant for the purpose of consideration of payment of amount of compensation. It is absurd to presume that the beneficiary is required to maintain the condition of the house after the damage was caused, for two years, so as to become entitled to the amount of compensation”.

¶27

Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that since the petitioner was not eligible to get such compensation, he has not been given the balance amount of the compensation. Learned counsel for the State further contended that the damage caused to the house of the petitioner could not be properly verified, therefore he has not been paid the ex-gratia compensation as has been claimed by the petitioner. It was also contended that the case of the petitioner cannot be equated with the persons to whom such amount has already been disbursed, especially such disbursal is based on verification of the condition of the house and the damage caused to the property of the person concerned. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to any compensation and accordingly it was stated that writ application is devoid of merit and is likely to be dismissed at the threshold.

¶28

Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties, on a careful examination of the factual background of

¶29

Page 4 of 6.

¶30

the present case, further taking note of the order passed by the learned Single Judge Bench in Bidulata Sahoo vs. Sate of Odisha and others which was confirmed in Writ Appeal bearing W.A. No.636 of 2024 vide order dated 02.07.2024 , this Court observes that the factual background of the present case was up for scrutiny before this Court in the previous round of litigation, and the facts involved in that case are identical to the case of the present petitioner who belongs to the same locality. In the previous writ as well as in the present writ application initially an amount of Rs.10,000/- was paid admitting the damage caused to the property of the petitioner. However, subsequently the same was denied, and the ground that has been taken while denying the payment of the balance ex-gratia compensation amount to the petitioner has already been dealt with by the coordinate bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.24500 of 2023 and the view taken by the learned co-ordinate bench has already been upheld by the Division bench in the abovenoted judgment. Therefore, there is no occasion to take a view differing from that which has already been taken by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court and confirmed by the Division bench. In such view of the matter, the present writ application is disposed of in terms of the order passed in W.A. No.636 of 2024 dated 02.07.2024. Accordingly, the writ application is disposed of by directing the Opposite parties to pay the balance ex-gratia compensation amount of Rs.85,100/- to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of communication of a certified copy of

Page 5 of 6.

Rubi

today’s order.