The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P. (C). No. 14593 of 2024 Hemanta Kumar Mahanta …. Petitioner Mr. Karunakar Nayak, Advocate -versus- Union of India and Others …. Opp. Parties Advoc Mr. B. K. Parhi, CGC Mr. Arupananda Das, AGA CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
Legal Reasoning
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Order No.
Decision
ORDER 18.09.2024 04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode). 2. Heard Mr. Karunakar Nayak, learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. Arupananda Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel and Mr. B.K. Parhi, learned Central Government Counsel. 3. This Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner for a direction to the Opposite Parties Nos. 1 to 4 to pay the awarded compensation to the Petitioner for the acquisition of his land pertaining to Khata No.204/38, Plot No.1253/1903 having an area of Ac.0.01 dec. of Mouza:- Kabitra, Tahasil/P.S.:-Sadar, Dist:-Keonjhar and upon their showing no cause or false cause or insufficient cause make the rule absolute by directing the Opposite Parties Nos.1 to 4 to pay compensation for the land acquisition as aforesaid and further to direct the Opposite Parties not to occupy the rest portion of Plot No.1253/1903 except area Ac.0.01 dec. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner drew the attention of this Court to Paragraph No.12 of the Writ Petition which indicates that the compensation amount has been wrongly awarded in favour of Opposite Party No.5 and the Opposite Party No.3 instructed the Opposite Party No.5 to refund the awarded compensation on the ground that the said compensation has been given to him wrongly instead of the Petitioner and he also drew the attention of this Court to the Paragraph No.13 wherein it is mentioned that the Opposite Party No.5 had already received the awarded compensation amount for a land acquisition and in that event a fraud has been committed by the Opposite Party Page 2 of 7 No.5 in connivance with some officials of the Opposite Party No.3. In this regard the provision stipulated in section 84 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 is referred to which provides punishment for false information, mala fide action etc. It is further submitted that the Petitioner purchased the land in question i.e. in respect to the Plot No.1253/1903 for an area of Ac. 0.19 dec., out of which Ac.0.01 dec. have been acquired, in the year 1998 which is much prior to the acquisition of the Opposite Parties for the purpose of dubling the Daitari Banspani Railways link. The Opposite Parties especially Opposite Party No.4 has admitted that the Petitioner is a recorded owner of the property in question and the R.O.R. has been created vide Mutation Case No. 285/1998. Neither the Cadastral Map nor Bhu-Naksha has been updated and therefore, the Trace Map could not be provided to the petitioner. Learned counsel argued that aforesaid action clearly indicates that the Opposite Parties have committed serious illegalities in making award to the Opposite Parties Nos.5 who is the vendor of the plot No. 1253/1903 and the same has already been sold to Page 3 of 7 Petitioner by virtue of registered sale deed out of which land was acquired. In the present case the Opposite Parties have not proceeded in accordance with provisions of the 2013 Act and as such the compensation amount has been awarded to Opposite Parties No.5 though the Petitioner has been recorded as the legal heirs of Late Bhubaneswar Mohanta and is the recorded owner of the said property. 5. Learned counsel for the State filed a letter No.113/DBRL/dated 12.09.2024 of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Daitari-Banspani Rail Link, Keonjhar wherein it is mentioned as follows:- “With reference to the letter on the subject cited above, I am to inform you that as per SIA Notification U/s 4(1), Declaration U/s 8(2), Notification U/s 11(1), Declaration U/s 19(1) of RFCTLAR & R Act, 2013, the aforesaid case land is in favour of Mala Rout, W/o-Babaji Rout of village-Sirispal, District- Keonjhar vide Khata No- 158 and Plot No- 1253 having acquired area Ac 0.01 out of Ac 0.12 in village-Kabitra. So, the compensation amount amounting to Rs.63,600.00(Rupees sixty-three thousand six hundred) only had been paid to the awardee Fakira Rout (Legal heir of RT) and others on the basis of relevant Page 4 of 7 official records for your kind reference. Subsequently, this office handed over the possession of the said land to Deputy Chief Engineer (Con.), East Coast Railway, JJKR (RO) on Dt.25.01.2022 (copy enclosed). the However, after one year of handing over possession, one person namely Bhubaneswar Mahanta, S/o-Karunakara Mahanta, Village- Gudunia, PS- Champua, District- Keonjhar has claimed that the above acquired land was purchased by him vide Khata No- 204/38 in village-Kabitra. Hence, a hearing was made between both the parties before Special LAO, Daitari-Banspani Rail Link, Keonjhar on dated 15.04.2024 for inquiry in this aforesaid matter and the awardee Fakira Rout agreed to total compensation amount refund amounting to Rs.63,600.00 (Rupees sixty- three thousand six hundred) only to the purchaser Bhubaneswar Mahanta within thirty days and an undertaking has been written by him in plain paper (copy enclosed). After thirty days, on telephonic conversation with the awardee Fakira Rout; he said that he had paid the amount within three months as some medical case had been taken place in his family. In the meantime, this office again directed to Shri Rout regarding action taken against the said refunded amount to this office Page 5 of 7 vide Letter No. 108/Dt.29.08.2024. But he had not submitted any statement in this matter till date.” 6. Rule 14 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Compensation, Rehabilitation and Resettlement, Development Plan) Rules, 2015 states as follows:- “14. Recovery of rehabilitation and resettlement benefit.- Any rehabilitation and resettlement benefit availed of by making a false claim or through fraudulent means shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890 (1 of 1890).” 7. Learned counsel for the State further submits that admittedly the Opposite Party No.5 has received the compensation amount, who is in fact not entitled to receive the same and in spite of repeated communication by the Special Land Acquisition Officer to refund the same so that it can be given to the Petitioner, he is not complying the order and taking other pleas. Therefore, the recovery proceeding has to be initiated in terms of the 2015 Rules. Page 6 of 7 8. Let appropriate steps in consonance with the Rules, 2015 be taken up within two months and the amount be handed over to the Petitioner after recovery. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Judge (S. K. Sahoo) Judge (Chittaranjan Dash) AKPradhan/Bijay Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BIJAY KETAN SAHOO Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 19-Sep-2024 16:21:12 Page 7 of 7