Biren Pattanayak ED, Jindal Steel & Power Ltd, Angul and others … v. …
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 14636 of 2016 Biren Pattanayak ED, Jindal Steel & Power Ltd, Angul and others ….. Vs. ….. Petitioner Mr. S.D. Tripathy, Advocate Opposite Parties
Legal Reasoning
Mr. P. Panda, Advocate (O.P No.1) and Mr. A.K. Mishra, AGA (O.P.2) Order No. 08. CORAM: DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMAN
Decision
ORDER 19.04.2023 This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. S.D. Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P. Panda, learned counsel for opposite party no.1 and Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-opposite party no.2. 3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking direction to the opposite party no.1 to make payment of additional 50% compensation as ex- gratia in favour of the petitioner with retrospective effect from 2009. 4. Mr. S.D. Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is the double displaced person and, as such, he is entitled to get the compensation. So far as release of compensation is concerned, though he has been paid compensation for the first instance, but for the second displacement, compensation has not been paid. To that extent, he had made a grievance before the Collector, Angul for payment of 50% additional compensation in case of double displacement over and above the normal compensation in form of ex-gratia. In response thereto, the Collector had sought for clarification from the Revenue Divisional Commissioner (Northern Division), Sambalpur about the dispute, vide his letter dated Page 1 of 4 22.12.2014, and the same was transmitted to the Government for clarification/instruction as to the manner of calculation regarding additional compensation of 50 per cent payable to a double displaced person. Finally, vide letter dated 4.3.2015, the Government of Odisha, Revenue & Disaster Management Department clarified the matter stating inter alia that if the award has been passed before 01.01.2014, the compensation is to be calculated as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the ex-gratia amount payable for a double displaced person as per the Odisha R&R Policy, 2006 has to be worked out by taking into account the compensation amount as awarded under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Therefore, it is contended that the same should be worked out and paid to the petitioner. 5. Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite party no.2 contended that since the petitioner has admitted that he has received the 1st phase of compensation, as a double displaced person the modalities have been prescribed. Whether the said amount has been paid or not, that is not made a part of the counter affidavit filed by opposite party no.1. Therefore, if the petitioner has got any grievance, let him approach the Collector, Angul, who will work out the same and see that the amount should be paid to the petitioner. 6. Mr. P. P. Panda, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.1, relying upon the documents which have been placed on record by way of additional affidavit, vehemently contended that the petitioner has been paid the compensation amount, and that the R&R Policy 2006 came into force w.e.f. 14.05.2006. In the said R&R Policy, it has been prescribed that for the purpose of declaring eligibility for R&R Policy, the list of displaced family has to be up-dated on the 1st January of the year in which physical displacement was scheduled to take place and accordingly, the cutoff date was fixed as 01.01.2009 and all the displaced persons were shifted either to R&R Colony or opted for self re-location as per their choice and, Page 2 of 4 accordingly, as per the definition of the family prescribed under the R&R Policy, all the major sons were treated as separate family and they had availed the benefit of the R&R Policy as PDF persons, in addition to compensation paid in lieu of land value awarded kissam wise and, inasmuch as compensation towards structure value along with 50% additional compensation as ex gratia for multiple displacement of Basudevpur village were provided to all the displaced persons and they have also acknowledged the same. Therefore, the question of payment of any compensation to the petitioner as claimed in the present writ petition is not admissible. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through record, this Court finds that there is no dispute that the petitioner is a double displaced person and there is also no dispute that the petitioner has been paid the 1st phase of compensation in accordance with R.R. Policy of 2006. The only dispute raised is that as a double displaced person, whether the compensation, which the petitioner is entitled to get has been paid or not. This question, as it seeks, has been considered, because the petitioner had made a representation to the Collector, Angul, who in its turn had sought for clarification from the Revenue Divisional Commissioner (Northern Division) Sambalpur and, as such, the same was also transmitted to the Government for clarification/instruction, and it was clarified finally by the Government of Odisha in Revenue & Disaster Management Department, vide letter dated 04.03.2015, stating inter alia that if the award has been passed before 01.01.2014, the compensation is to be calculated as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the ex-gratia amount payable for a double displaced person as per the Odisha R&R Policy, 2006 has to be worked out by taking into account the compensation amount as awarded under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Therefore, even though the counter affidavit has been filed by opposite party no.1 on 20.10.2016, but nothing has been placed on record to indicate that the petitioner has been paid his 2nd phase of Page 3 of 4 claim as made by him, for double displacement. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party no.1 vehemently contended that the compensation amount has already been paid to the petitioner. 8. Since these are disputed question of facts, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. However, the petitioner is permitted to move an appropriate application within two weeks hence before the Collector, Angul for settlement of his claim with regard to grant of additional compensation in case of double displacement, so that the Collector, Angul shall consider the same and pass appropriate order by affording opportunity to the petitioner as well as the opposite parties no. 1 and 2. The opposite party no. 1 has to justify that it has complied the direction with regard to payment of second phase of compensation for double displaced person. If the Collector is satisfied, then he shall pass appropriate order in accordance with law. If the Collector is not satisfied on the submission of opposite party no.1 and found that the petitioner has not been paid the second phase of compensation, in that case, the amount be calculated and direction be given to the opposite party no.1 to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of communication of this order. 9. With the above observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. (DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE Arun (M.S. RAMAN) JUDGE Page 4 of 4