The High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 09-Sep-2025 13:50:02 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 1502 OF 2025 Santilata Mahanta State of Odisha and others Petitioner Mr. Ghanashyam Namtoar, Advocate …. -versus- …. Opp. Parties Mr. Manmaya Kumar Dash, Additional Standing Counsel CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
Decision
ORDER 04.09.2025 This mater is taken up through hybrid mode. Petitioner in this writ petition seeks to assail the order Order No. 5. 1. 2. No.3281 dated 7th December, 2024 (Annexure-9) passed by Collector, Keonjhar pursuant to the direction of this Court dated 25th April, 2024 in W.P.(C) No.9769 of 2024 filed by the Petitioner. 3. Mr. Namtoar, learned counsel submits that the Petitioner is the daughter of late Dullabha Mahanta residing at village Mursuan, PS:Sadar, district Keonjhar. The land of said Dullabha Mahanta pertaining to Plot No.388, Khata No. 23 in Mouza- Mursuan, PS-Champua, district Keonjhar (for brevity ‘the case land’) got submerged for construction of the Kanpur Irrigation Project. Said Dullabha Mahanta passed away on 14th December, 1994. Since the case land was submerged, it was acquired pursuant to notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity ‘the Act’) and LA Case No.4 of 2004 was initiated. A compensation to the tune of Rs.62,27,627/- was awarded and paid to the legal heirs of said Dullabha Mahanta. Page 1 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 09-Sep-2025 13:50:02 3.1 It is further submitted that a special package was announced for land losers of Kanpur Irrigation Project in terms of the Odisha Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, 2006 (for brevity ‘2006 Policy’), which included rehabilitation by way of employment. The Petitioner claimed employment of her son Bibhuti Kumar Mahanta, who is an educated youth to be rehabilitated under 2006 Policy. Accordingly, she approached the Project Director of Kanpur Irrigation Project, Basudevpur as well as LA.O. and R.R.O. of Kanpur Irrigation Project, Rimuli, Keonjhar requesting that her name may be considered for special rehabilitation package by making provision for employment of her son, namely, Bibhuti Kumar Mahanta as her nominee. The Petitioner also submitted a representation to the authorities, but it was not considered. Hence, she approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.9769 of 2024. The said writ petition was disposed on 25th April, 2024 with the following direction. “5. As agreed by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, disposes of the writ petition directing Opposite Party No.2 to consider and dispose of the representation filed by the Petitioner vide Annexure-5 series and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.” Pursuant to the said direction, the impugned order under Annexure- 9 has been passed. 4. It is also submitted by Mr. Namtoar, learned counsel that the Petitioner is a member of affected family and thus is entitled to the rehabilitation package as per 2006 Policy. The Collector, Keonjhar while considering the representation of the Petitioner, did not take into consideration the aforesaid material aspect. She being the Page 2 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 09-Sep-2025 13:50:02 daughter of the land loser, namely, late Dullabha Mahanta and the land of said Dullabha Mahanta having acquired for Kanpur Irrigation Project, she is squarely covered under 2006 Policy and is entitled to the special package including employment. She has nominated her son to be provided with employment under the special package. Hence, Mr. Namtoar, learned counsel for the Petitioner prays for setting aside the impugned order under Annexure-9, to direct the authorities to include her name in the list of affected family and to provide employment to her son. 5. Mr. Dash, learned ASC vehemently opposes to the submission made by Mr. Namtoar, learned counsel for the Petitioner. It is his submission that the impugned order under Annexure-9 passed by the Collector, Keonjhar is self-explanatory. The Petitioner is neither coming under the displaced or affected family. Thus, she is not entitled to any special package, as claimed. It is his submission that admittedly, the Petitioner had married to one Rukman Mahanta of Birakishorepur in the year 1983, whereas 2006 Policy clearly stipulates that displaced and affected families who have ordinarily resided in the affected area for at least three years prior to the preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are entitled to the benefit under the said Policy. The said preliminary notification for land acquisition was made on 30th May, 2006. Thus, by no stretch of imagination neither the Petitioner nor her son can be considered to be members of displaced/affected family. The Collector, Keonjhar discussing the same held that the Petitioner is not entitled to the claim made in her representation and rejected the same. As such, there is no illegality in the impugned order. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Page 3 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 09-Sep-2025 13:50:02 7. In course of hearing, Mr. Namtoar, learned counsel for the Petitioner did not dispute that the Petitioner married to Rukman Mahanta in the year 1983. It is also not disputed that the preliminary notification for acquisition of the land in village Mursuan for Kanpur Irrigation Project, Basudevpur was published in the Odisha Gazette No.806 dated 30th May, 2006. The Petitioner claims to be entitled to the benefit under 2006 Policy, which clearly stipulates that the displaced and affected families are those who ordinarily resided in the affected area for at least 3 (three) years prior to the preliminary notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 8. Admittedly, the Petitioner is not staying in the village since 1983. Being a married lady, she is residing in her in-laws’ village Birakishorepur since 1983. Thus, she cannot be treated to be a member of the displaced or affected family in terms of the aforesaid 2006 Policy. The Petitioner also cannot be considered as dependent of the land loser, namely, late Dullabha Mahanta, her father. 9. In view of the discussions made above, we have no hesitation to hold that the Collector, Keonjhar has committed no error in rejecting the representation of the Petitioner, vide his order dated 7th December, 2024 (Annexure-9). 10. Thus, the writ petition being devoid of any merit stands dismissed. (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge (Savitri Ratho) Judge Page 4 of 4 s.s.ssatpathy