The High Court · 1986
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.19065 of 2023 Rajesh Pradhan ….. Petitioner Mr. Pabitra Kumar Nayak, Advocate -versus- Chief Managing Director, Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., Sambalpur and others ..... Opp. Parties CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO THE HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO Order No.
Decision
ORDER 11.02.2025 02. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 13-Feb-2025 11:36:56 arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode). As per the order dated 04.07.2023, learned counsel for the petitioner has filed the notification dated 14th June 1986 and 9th November 2015 along with a memo, which is available on record at „Flag-X‟. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Rajesh Pradhan with a prayer to quash the order dated 12.01.2023 passed by the Chief Managing Director, Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., Sambalpur, opp. party no.1 on the representation filed by the petitioner as per the order of this Court passed in W.P.(C) No.32321 of 2022. Page 1 of 6 It is the case of the petitioner that M.S. Khata No.15 and 16 of Mouza-Chingriguda were recorded in the name of the father of the petitioner, namely, late Hara Pradhan and that apart, there was also a joint ancestral residential house at village-Chingriguda besides the aforesaid property in M.S. Khata No.74/84 of Mouza- Chingriguda of area Ac.0.15 dec. which was also recorded exclusively in the name of the petitioner. The opp. parties notified for acquisition of land under Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (hereafter, “1957 Act”) and the opp. party no.2 issued a notice under section 13(5) of 1957 Act to receive the amount of Rs.3,656/- (rupees three thousand six hundred fifty six) for acquisition of land bearing Mouza- Chingriguda, Khata No.74/84, Plot No.378/4399 and 379/4000 area total Ac.0.15 dec. It is the further case of the petitioner that since the entire land and building, which was recorded in the name of the father of the petitioner and Ac.0.15 dec. land along with residential building in which the petitioner was exclusively owner of the land has been acquired by M.C.L. authorities, the father of the petitioner made a representation before the opp. parties for appointment of the petitioner as „land oustee‟ against land acquired under 1957 Act. It is the further case of the petitioner that the opp. party no.4 intimated the petitioner that the employment Page 2 of 6 of the petitioner against acquisition of land in village- Chingriguda has not been agreed to by M.C.L., Burla. The petitioner submitted a representation to the opp. party no.4 and since there was no response from the opp. party no.4, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.32321 of 2022 and this Court vide order dated 05.12.2022 has been pleased to dispose of the said writ petition directing the opp. party no.4 to consider the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law. After the order was passed, the opp. party no.4 rejected the representation filed by the petitioner vide Annexure-6, which is impugned in this writ petition. The opp. party no.4 in the impugned order dated 12.01.2023 has stated that an area of 5.18 acres of land in Khatian No.15 was notified under section 4(1) on 14.06.1986, under section 7(1) on 02.04.1988 and under section 9(1) on 14.04.1990 by Central Government in the Gazette of India and vesting with Govt. company under section 11(1) on 09.10.1991. It is further stated therein that one Hara Pradhan, who is the father of the petitioner submitted a registered settlement letter vide registered no.1064 dated 16.04.1956 claiming 0.65 acres of land out of Khatian No.15 but later it was found that out of the said 0.65 acres of land, he had already sold 0.63 acres of land which includes selling of land to his own sons, namely, Suresh Pradhan, Rajesh Pradhan Page 3 of 6 (petitioner) and Umesh Pradhan after 4(1) & 7(1) notification leaving only 0.02 acres of agricultural land out of acquired area. The petitioner had purchased an area of 0.15 acres of land vide registered deed no.1441 dated 22.12.1989 and subsequently mutated the land in his favour. So far as acquisition of 0.02 acres of land out of Khatian No.15 of Mouza- Chingriguda is concerned, Umesh Pradhan, the brother of the petitioner has been provided with employment benefits as per the nominee of the said Hara Pradhan. In the impugned order, it is stated that the guidelines issued by the Govt. of Orissa vide No.56785/R dated 24.12.1993 indicate that the employment opportunity need not be given to the persons who purchase the land after notification under section 4(1) of the L.A. Act and since the petitioner purchased the land by way of registered sale deed on 22.12.1989, which is obviously after 4(1) notification, it was held that the petitioner is not eligible for employment against the land recorded in his name in M.S. Khata No.74/84 of Mouza- Chingriguda. So far as the balance share of 0.02 acres of land of Hara Pradhan is concerned, as his nominee, the brother of the petitioner, namely, Umesh Pradhan has already been extended the employment benefits. It is further mentioned in the said impugned order dated 12.01.2023 that the family members of Hara Pradhan nor any one of his sons‟ family were residing in Page 4 of 6 village- Chingriguda and no house structure has been acquired from them by M.C.L. in village – Chingriguda or in any other village acquired by M.C.L. and therefore, neither Hara Pradhan nor his family members be treated as project displaced family and accordingly, the claim of employment of the petitioner was not agreed to by M.C.L. authorities and the representation filed by the petitioner was rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed the Anneuxre-7, which is the letter dated 24.12.1993 of the Govt. of Orissa, Revenue & Excise Department wherein it is clearly stated while relaxing the restriction imposed in G.O. No.5408 dated 30.01.1992 that a person may be given employment opportunities who held the land prior to the publication of notification under section 4(1) of the L.A. Act. The employment opportunity need not be given to the persons who purchase the land after notification under section 4(1) of the L.A. Act and other stipulation in the G.O. remained unchanged. In view of the aforesaid letter dated 24.12.1993 and the undisputed fact that the petitioner purchased the land by way of a registered sale deed dated 22.12.1989, which is after the 4(1) notification dated 14.06.1986 and 7(1) notification dated 02.04.1988 and since as per the nomination of Hara Pradhan, in whose favour, the original land was in existence, the brother of the petitioner has already been extended the employment Page 5 of 6 benefit, we find no illegality in the impugned order dated 12.01.2023 under Annexure-6 which requires our interference. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same stands dismissed. Pending application (s), if any, also stands disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy as per Rules. Judge ( S.K. Sahoo) sipun (Savitri Ratho) Judge Page 6 of 6