The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.4044 of 2025 Subrat Kumar Behera ….. Petitioner Mr. Somanath Mishra, Advocate -versus- Mahanadi Coalfield Ltd., Sambalpur and others ..... Opp. Parties CORAM:
Legal Reasoning
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Order No.
Decision
ORDER 24.02.2025 02. This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode). Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Subrat Kumar Behera with a prayer to quash the order under Annexure-9, which is letter dated 25.07.2024 and under Annexure-13, which is order dated 04.12.2024 passed by the General Manager, Hingula Area, Mahanadi Coalfield Ltd. and further prayer to direct the opp. parties to give employment to the petitioner as a land oustee as per his qualification. Page 1 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR BADHEI Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 25-Feb-2025 17:48:56 It seems that the petitioner earlier approached this Court in W.P.(C) no.23585 of 2024 wherein it was his case that a representation has been filed by the petitioner before the authority to provide him employment under the L & R Policy, but the detail particulars are not mentioned, for which, learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to file a fresh representation before the General Manager, Hingula Area, Mahanadi Coalfield Ltd. and accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of as per the order dated 01.10.2024 permitting the petitioner to make a fresh representation before the opp. party no.2 enclosing a copy of the writ petition which is to be disposed of giving opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and the result of the decision taken on the representation to be communicated to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of taking the decision. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in terms of the order dated 01.10.2024, a fresh representation along with the copy of the writ petition was filed and personal hearing was also afforded by the authority to the petitioner. However, the claim of the petitioner was rejected which is impugned in this writ petition. On perusal of the impugned order dated 04.12.2024 under Annexure-13, it appears that the opp. Page 2 of 6 party no.2 has given the following reasons for rejecting the claim of the petitioner. the date of his death, “(A) That, Millu Behera, S/ o Dangi Behera, the recorded tenant of Khata no.51 of village Mallibandha, was losing AG and GB land in the 2nd phase acquisition of village Mallibandha by Hingula OCP, Hingula Area, MCL, and the due compensation towards land & structure has been paid. Millu Behera, S/o Dangi Behera, died on 31.05.2018 as per the death certificate bearing regd. dated no D-2018-21-01512-000559 09.06.2018 submitted by the petitioner, wherein the age of Late Milu Behera is mentioned as 31 years as on i.e., 31.05.2018. In this connection, the petitioner has submitted a legal certificate of Milu Behra, S/o Dangi Behra, bearing Misc. cert. Case no. e- LHC/860 of 2018, issued on 10.01.2019, wherein Dillip Kumar Behera, aged 31 years (married), has been mentioned as the adopted son. (B) Further, as per the death certificate of Dillip Kumar Behera bearing regd. no. 240/2022 dated 28.09.2022 submitted by the petitioner, the age of late Dillip Kumar Behera is mentioned as 45 years as of his death, i.e., 09.09.2022. In this connection, the petitioner has submitted a legal heir certificate of Lt. Dillip Kumar Behera, S/o Lt. Milu Behera of Village Mallibandha, bearing Misc. cert. Case no. e-LHC/2022/224157 issued on 12.01.2023, wherein Renna Pradhan alias Behera, aged 40 (wife); Subrat Kumar Pradhan alias Behera, aged 20 (son); and Shibani Pradhan alias Behera, aged 15 (daughter) are mentioned as the legal heirs of Lt. Dillip Kumar Behera. (C) Further, the petitioner submitted his high school certificate bearing SI. No. 1801089879, Page 3 of 6 vide officer, Talcher, issued on 07.05.2018, wherein the petitioner's name is mentioned as Subrat Kumar Pradhan, and his mother's name is Renna Pradhan, and his father's name is Dillip Kumar Pradhan. (D) The petitioner has also submitted a copy of an affidavit sworn by Dillip Kumar Pradhan bearing AR No. 4818 dated 28.12.2017 executed before the Executive Magistrate, Talcher. It has been mentioned that the age of Dillip Kumar Pradhan is about 36 years, and the father's name is Purna Chandra Pradhan of Handidhua. (E) Subsequently the petitioner has submitted a copy of the deed of adoption executed before the no. registration 40051203673 dated 30.10.2012. According to the adoption deed, the adoptive father is Milu Behera, aged about 56 years, s/o Lt. Dangi Behera, and the adopted son is Dillip Kumar Pradhan, aged about 31 years. In the said deed, it has been "the GIVING and TAKING mentioned ceremony of the adoption has been done in the residence of natural parents at village Handidhua on 08.01.1985. (F) The petitioner has also submitted the copy of the adhar card bearing no .980521632637 wherein, the Date of Birth of Dilip Kumar Behera is mentioned as 22.02.1987. While corroborating the above facts, it is observed that the date of birth as per the above-mentioned Aadhar card of Dillip Kumar Behera is 22.02.1987, whereas the TAKING & GIVING ceremony of the adoption of Dillip Kumar Behera has been done on 08.01.1985. So the information furnished in the deed is beyond the bounds of possibility. (G) Further, as per the other relevant documents submitted by the petitioner no-1 in regard to the age and name of the adopted son Dillip Kumar that Page 4 of 6 they are father of the petitioner, Behera, contradictory to each other. (H) Apart from above, the adopted deed executed by the exutant is not a valid one as it is violating the clause-10 of the Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956. (I) Beside this, the nominee Subrat Kumar Behera S/o Lt Dilip Kumar Behera (age as on cut-off date- 16Y 08M OO D) and was a minor on the Cut-Off date 12.12.2018. (J) Further, the petitioner was asked to adduce any other evidences and produce the supporting materials before opposite party no.02 i.e. General Manager, Hingula Area. The petitioner no.1 has showed any inabilities documents/evidences to adduce in this case.” produce his to Learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to paragraph no.17 onwards of the writ petition and submits that the rejection order under Annexure-13 was not justified and proper and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. However, the authority found that the date of adoption and the relevant document filed by the petitioner are contrary and inconsistent with each other. Moreover, the petitioner has not approached the appropriate Court for obtaining declaration in respect to the status of the petitioner as adopted son of Dillip Kumar Behera. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. It is up to the petitioner to seek for appropriate Page 5 of 6 remedy in the competent Court of law and thereafter to seek necessary reliefs as the land oustee in accordance with law. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Judge ( S.K. Sahoo) Rajesh (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge Page 6 of 6