Writ Appeal No. 34 of 2015 · The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA: CUTTACK Writ Appeal No. 34 of 2015 An application under Article 4 of the Orissa High Court Order, 1948 read with Clause 10 of the Letters Patent Act, 1992 read with Chapter III Rule 6 of the Rules of the High Court of Orissa, 1948. ---------------------- Gadadhara Biswal and others ……… Appellants -Versus- General Manager, Jagannath Area Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd., Talcher, Angul and another ……… Respondents For Appellants: - Mr. S.P. Mishra (Senior Advocate) Mr. Soumya Mishra Ms. Sakshi Rout For Respondents: - Mr. K.M. Nataraj, A.S.G.I. Mr. Pitambar Acharya (Advocate General) Mr. Rakesh Sharma Mr. Soumyajit Pani Mr. Debraj Mohanty ---------------------- Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 1 of 135 P R E S E N T: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. MISHRA --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing: 10.09.2025 Date of Judgment: 24.09.2025 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S.K. SAHOO, J. “All is well that ends well” is not just a play written by William Shakespeare, the greatest English playwright but the proverb which signifies that if the final outcome of a situation is positive, then any previous struggles, setbacks, or difficulties are considered unimportant. This case portrays a legal battle between the two parties which started much before 2004 when the homestead and agricultural lands of the Appellants situated in village Hensamul under Talcher Tahasil in Angul district were acquired under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as „CBA Act‟) and the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as „LA Act‟) and vested to the Central Government and divested in favour of Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Talcher (hereinafter referred to as „MCL‟). Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 2 of 135 The land losers are the Appellants who claimed that in spite of acquisition of their lands, benefits under Odisha Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy, 2006 (hereafter „R & R Policy, 2006‟) were not provided to them fully by the Respondents causing injustice to them, whereas the case of the Respondents is that even though the Appellants have been provided with benefits under R & R Policy, 2006, they are creating trouble in not vacating the houses and homestead lands in the acquired area. The legal battle between the haves and have-nots brings forth as to how economic inequality creates significant barriers to justice for impoverished individuals and communities. The Government formulates the policies to achieve the constitutional goals set out in Part IV of the Constitution of India in the form of Directive Principles of State Policies and an attempt is made to bridge the gaps between the haves and have-nots. Those who are charged with the duty of giving effect to the policies of the Government must act in such a manner which should not create frustration of such policies of the Government. This Court tried its best in the case in hand to see that the financial barrier and power imbalances between the two Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 3 of 135 parties does not create hurdle on the path of the Appellants land losers in getting their deserved constitutional and legal rights and their right to life which includes right to livelihood, right to shelter and right to healthy environment are protected. Rehabilitation is meant only for those persons who have been rendered destitute because of a loss of residence or livelihood as a consequence of land acquisition. The primary purpose of rehabilitation and resettlement is to improve the social and economic conditions of family displaced by land acquisition for development projects, ensuring that they achieve at least a previous, or ideally better standard of living and earning capacity post-dislocation. The authorities are legally bound to explore the avenues of rehabilitation by way of employment, housing, investment opportunities, and identification of alternative lands. 2. In this writ appeal, 102 Appellants seek to set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 13.01.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.21006 of 2014 in dismissing the writ petition filed by them and rejecting their prayer for a direction to the Respondents not to take any coercive action against them by evicting them from their Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 4 of 135 dwelling houses and/or by terminating their employment, till they are physically allotted plots in the resettlement site. The 102 Appellants along with two others filed the writ petition with the following prayers: “a. why the letter dated 31.07.2014 vide Annexure-12 to the extent challenged in the writ application, shall not be quashed; b. why the Opp. parties shall not be directed to reinstate the services of the Petitioners without attachment and imposition of any conditions and in accordance with letter dated 09.07.2014 of the Sub-Collector, issued in terms with the decisions taken in the meeting dated 06.07.2014; c. why the Opp. parties shall not be directed not to take any coercive action against the Petitioners till they are allotted plots physically in the resettlement site; And in the event the Opp. parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause, the said Rule be made absolute and Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 5 of 135 a. the letter dated 31.7.2014 vide Annexure-12 to the extent challenged in the writ application, be quashed; b. the Opp. Parties be directed to reinstate the services of the Petitioners without attachment and imposition of any conditions and in accordance with letter dated 09.07.2014 of the Sub-Collector, issued in terms with the decisions taken in the meeting dated 06.07.2014; c. the Opp. parties be directed to not take any coercive action against the Petitioners till they are allotted plot physically in the resettlement site.” 3. It is the case of the Appellants in the writ petition that they are residents of village Hensamul (Talasahi), P.S.:- Talcher Sadar in the district of Angul. The lands of the Appellants were acquired in different phases both under the CBA Act and the L.A. Act for the purpose of coal mining of Ananta OCP, Bhubaneswari OCP and Lingaraj OCP of Mahanadi Coal Fields limited. The lands were acquired in Hensamul village under the land acquisition proceeding which started in the year 1987. As a part of the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Schemes, on handing Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 6 of 135 over their respective agricultural lands situated in the village Hensamul, the Appellants were appointed by the MCL Authority in different phases. While the matter stood thus, the MCL Authority issued notices on dated 12.07.2013, 13.07.2013, 14.07.2013, 12/14.07.2013 and 13/14.07.2013 to the residents of Talasahi including the Appellants, placed within the village of Hensamul to hand over the dwelling houses and vacate their homestead lands for enabling the MCL Authority for commencement of mining activities over the said area. On their own statements, the Appellants had already handed over their agricultural lands to the MCL Authorities. Even though notices were issued for handing over the dwelling houses/residential areas, but such notices were not acted upon following a decision of the Authority to hold on the same and to proceed with the same only after a tripartite meeting was held between the MCL Management, the villagers and the authorities of the State of Odisha. The Respondents had zeroed on the site at Mouza Gurujang, without preparing the list of sites which would have been feasible for the purpose of resettlement of the members of displaced community. Mouza Gurujang was more than 25 kilometers away from the place where the Appellants were residing and it would have caused manifest harassment to the Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 7 of 135 villagers, which was also contrary to the schemes of rehabilitation and resettlement which required that lists of sites for resettlement of members of displaced communities were to be prepared after consulting the members before finalizing the site. It is the further case of the Appellants that they challenged the action of the management in issuing notices of handing over possession of their dwelling houses situated in village Talasahi in W.P.(C) No.17257 of 2013. In the said writ petition, the Appellants also challenged the action of the Respondents in forcing them to either accept plots at the Gurujang Resettlement site or to accept „Swarna Yojana Package‟ for resettlement. The Appellants prevailed over MCL in the above regard owing to inconvenient location and lack of amenities and the resettlement site. While the matter stood thus, the MCL Authority, particularly the Project Officer, Ananta OCP issued letters of termination against the Appellants on the ground of failure to hand over the possession of their dwelling houses to the Respondents. Challenging the aforesaid action of the management, one Padmanava Biswal filed a writ petition before this Court, which was registered as W.P.(C) No.9477 of 2014 and this Court upon hearing the said matter on the question of Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 8 of 135 admission, by order dated 05.05.2015 passed an interim order directing the Project Officer, Ananta OCP not to give effect to the same till the next date. In the meanwhile, a meeting was held on dated 06.07.2014 between the residents of village Hensamul and the MCL Management on the issue of selection of resettlement site as well as on the aspect of termination of the land outsees. It was resolved to look for an alternate site other than Gurujang and Balandapasi. The Appellants further contended that in the said meeting, it was also resolved as follows: “i. MCL authorities will reinstate the retrenched employees by 10.07.2014. These will be no break of service; ii. Collector, Angul will be requested to convene the meeting of the PLARC at the earliest to discuss and finalize in principle the rehabilitation site; iii. The MCL will start taking measures towards rendering the site from legal perspective; iv. The MCL authorities will arrange interim accommodation as will be decided by the PLRAC after the site is finalized in principle and on Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 9 of 135 extension of such facilities, the villagers will start vacating their homestead land.” It is the further case of the Appellants that in a meeting held under the Chairmanship of Hon‟ble Minister, Energy, Government of Odisha with CMD-MCL, Director (Personal), MCL, Director (Technical), MCL in presence of MLA, Talcher and the Principal Secretary, Energy Department on 16.07.2014, it was decided that the MCL authority was to immediately issue letter of employment reinstating the displaced household persons without attaching any pre-condition of affidavit by the individual households. In the said meeting, it was also resolved to write to the individual households regarding allotment of lands in front of Balanda College for construction of R & R Colony and to be allotted quarters in the residential colony to accommodate the households till houses are constructed in the R & R Colony. It is claimed by the Appellants that consequent upon the development, the Appellants were issued with letters of reinstatement in their services indicating that there shall be no break in the service in respect of the Appellants. In addition to such letters, the Appellants were also intimated to comply with the agreed points as per the minutes of meeting held on 06.07.2014, subsequent letter dated 11.07.2014 of the Sub- Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 10 of 135 Collector, Talcher as well as minutes of meeting held on 16.07.2014, but at the same time, the MCL authorities demanded handing over physical possession of the dwelling houses in favour of the MCL latest by 31.10.2014. Pursuant to above letters, the Appellants joined their services being reinstated. It is the further case of the Appellants that while the matter stood thus, the Appellants were communicated with a letter dated 31.07.2014 of General Manager, Jagannath Area (Respondent no.1) indicating therein the following: “i) Re-instatement all the terminated employees without break in service & with immediate effect; ii) The villagers will not have to submit affidavit for the same; iii) MCL has already agreed for allotment of R & R site situated in front of Balanda College as has been decided in PLRRC meeting on 19.07.2014. MCL will allot plot to the villagers at R & R site in front of Balanda College duly decided by PLRRC after obtaining clearance from Govt. of India and diversion of forest if required. MCL Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 11 of 135 management has already initiated action before the appropriate authority for allotment of the plots; iv) The villagers who are not having Company‟s accommodation will be allotted Company‟s quarters on priority basis and in minimum possible time as decided in the Sub-Collector‟s meeting on 06.07.2014; v) MCL has also agreed to adjust the period of absence due to termination from service with payment of leave in credit of the individual. It was also brought to the notice of the Appellants that they were required to vacate their dwelling houses and hand it over to MCL for continuation of mining operation of Bhubaneswari OCP latest by 31.10.2014.” The Appellants being aggrieved by the conditions as narrated hereinabove approached this Court on the premises that the conditions/terms in reinstating the Appellants were unconditional and having reinstated the Appellants in service, the authorities were not justified to impose the conditions as contained in the letter dated 31.07.2014. The Appellants claimed Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 12 of 135 that conditions imposed in the said letter are illegal, arbitrary and in colourable exercise of power and further runs contrary to the time-to-time assurances given by the Company in different meetings taken place. The Appellants claimed that the conditions imposed by MCL authority defeated the assurances and objectives of the resettlement and rehabilitation policy. 4. Counter affidavit was filed by the Respondents in the writ petition wherein it is stated, inter alia, that the conditions imposed in the letter dated 31.07.2014 has nothing to do with the resettlement and rehabilitation of the Appellants. No action of the MCL authorities was in contravention of the R & R Policy, 1989 or 2006. The lands in the village Hensamul being acquired, the Appellants have no right to stay over the land and it would delay in the allotment of land in favour of the Appellants as each of them have been provided employment in the Company and the Company is providing its own quarters for their accommodation for the time being till the rehabilitation site is made ready. Further as the Company is in urgent requirement of mining in the locality, there is no illegality in issuing the impugned letter to the appellants. The MCL authority also contended that they were ready and willing to comply the assurances in acquisition of the appellants land and as a major Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 13 of 135 part of compliance, apart from the acquisition money/compensation, the Appellants were provided with the employment in the Company, but for some technical reasons, provision for allotment of land in favour of the Appellants for their resettlement was getting delayed. However, keeping in view the urgency with the Company and the inconvenience caused to the land oustees as they would have to vacate their residential houses, the Company has already earmarked particular quarters inside the company premises to be allotted to the land outsees till they were provided alternate sites and as such the Appellants should not have any grievance in the matter. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the Govt. of Odisha promulgated R & R Policy, 1989 for resettlement and rehabilitation of the people whose agricultural and homestead lands including houses were acquired/are to be acquired. As per the R & R Policy, 1989, one committee was formed i.e. Rehabilitation Advisory Committee (RAC), headed by concerned Revenue Divisional Commissioner, which was re- named as Rehabilitation and Periphery Development Advisory Committee (in short “RPDAC” as per R & R Policy 2006) along with a Sub-Committee namely Project Level Rehabilitation and Resettlement Committee (in short “PLRRC”) headed by Collector Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 14 of 135 of the District, who looks after the resettlement of the land oustees and selection of resettlement site, which is made available by the Government. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the Respondents discussed with the Collector, Angul for providing a site to resettle the land oustees of village Hensamul and Jilinda whose lands were acquired including the houses and accordingly, the Revenue Authorities of Angul district allotted around 45 Acres of land for resettlement site at village Gurujang. Number of meetings were held by the A.D.M, Angul, and other Revenue Officers with the villagers of Hensamul and Jilinda and the A.D.M, Angul, vide its letter dt.19.4.2010 intimated that villagers of Hensamul and Jilinda have agreed to shift to the resettlement site at Gurujang. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the Respondent No.1 on receipt of
Legal Reasoning
the confirmation letter dt.19.10.2010 for resettlement site at Gurujang by the A.D.M., Angul for the land oustees of village Hensamul and Jilinda, developed the resettlement site by making plots, roads, electrification, school building, playground, pond, market complex, temple and provision of water supply like deep bore Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 15 of 135 well with overhead tanks etc. by spending crores of rupees as per the provisions of R & R Policy, 1989. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that apart from re-settlement policy for providing housing plots to the land oustees, whose lands were acquired for coal mining purpose, on a fully developed resettlement site, the Board of Director of MCL in its 128th meeting held on 26.03.2011, promulgated “SWARNA YOJANA” wherein it was decided to enhance the compensation, house building assistance, maintenance allowance, allowance for temporary shed, transport allowance along with special incentive for early vacation and handing over vacant possession of home/ homestead land, agricultural land etc., for those land oustees who were not interested in the resettlement plot provided by MCL with the aid and assistance of State Government. The said decision of the Board of Directors of MCL held on 26.3.2011 was approved in the Company Level Joint Consultative Committee (J.C.C.) meeting held on 03.04.2011. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that after the development of the resettlement site at Gurujang, the land oustees of village Hensamul and Jilinda were asked either to accept the homestead plot (10 decimals) at the resettlement site at Gurujang or avail the SWARNA JYOJNA in lieu of the plot at Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 16 of 135 resettlement site. Many land oustees of both the villages preferred to accept the homestead plots at the resettlement site at Gurujang and some accepted the SWARNA JYOJNA. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the Appellants who are some of the residents of village Hensamul (Talasahi), even if were given appointments in MCL as per the R & R Policy, 1989, refused to accept either the plots in the resettlement site at Gurujang or avail SWARNA JYOJNA with a plea that the resettlement site at village Gurujang is not acceptable to them nor they are interested to avail SWARNA JYOJNA, even though out of 285 families, 159 families have availed the resettlement facilities. On such plea, the Appellants refused to vacate the houses and homestead lands, which was creating problem for the MCL authorities for operation of mining of coal under Bhubaneswari OCP, by that process it was becoming difficult to fulfill the target of coal production and to provide coal to various power plants of the country. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the permission has been granted by Ministry of Coal, Government of India on dated 11.07.2013 for mining of 25 million tons of coal from Bhbaneswari OCP, and this OCP is the biggest supplier of coal to various power plants of the country. If the Appellants Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 17 of 135 would not vacate their homestead lands and houses immediately, the progress of mining at Bhubaneswari OCP could not be done and that the excavation of 25 million tons of coal per annum could not be possible. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the Respondents conducted various meetings with the Appellants for handing over of their homestead lands along with houses, and various notices were also served upon them for vacating the same, but when the Appellants shown a deaf ear, termination letter dt.05.05.2014 as per Annexure-5 was issued on the basis of Clause-3 & 4 of the appointment letter. After termination of the Appellants, the Appellants created various problems for operation of Bhubaneswari OCP, by observing strikes and also created law and order situation in the Area and accordingly, FIRs were lodged against the Appellants and their leaders. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that due to the disturbance at Bhubaneswari OCP created by the Appellants, the matter was brought to the notice of the district administration for taking appropriate steps for smooth running of the mining operation at Bhubaneswari OCP and accordingly a meeting was held on 06.07.2014 in the chamber of the Sub- Collector, Talcher in presence of the villagers and their leaders Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 18 of 135 along with the officials of MCL. In the said meeting, discussions were made regarding the re-instatement of the Appellants in their services and regarding re-selection of resettlement site. The Appellants in the said meeting claimed that they would accept the site in front of Balanda College, Talcher. In the said meeting, it was decided that MCL authorities would reinstate the retrenched employees without any break of service. It was further decided that MCL authorities would arrange interim accommodation as would be decided by the PLRRC after the site was finalized in principle and on extension of such facilities, the villagers would start vacating their homestead lands and houses. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that as per the decision taken by the Sub-Collector, Talcher, reinstatement order was issued on 13.07.2014 with a condition that the Appellants have to submit an affidavit as per the conditions of the management of MCL, but the Appellants refused to give any such affidavit and did not join in their service. Again another meeting was held in the Chairmanship of Hon‟ble Minister of Energy, Govt. of Odisha on dt.16.07.2014 in presence of C.M.D., Director (Personnel), Director (Technical), of MCL and M.L.A., Talcher, and it was decided that the MCL would immediately issue order of reinstatement without attaching any pre- Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 19 of 135 conditions of filing affidavit and allocate quarters till houses were constructed in the R & R Colony in front of Balanda College, Talcher. It is further stated in the counter affidavit a further meeting was held on 31.07.2014 in the office of the Sub- Collector, Talcher, wherein certain questions raised by the Appellants, were discussed and it was decided that in principle, the PLRRC had agreed the site in front of Balanda College in the meeting held on 19.07.2014 and the MCL authorities will take proactive action for obtaining clearance from MOEF with regard to non-forest use for the said land. It was further decided that there would be phased vacation from the site of dwelling i.e., houses and homestead lands at village Hensamul by 31.07.2014 subject to arrangement of interim accommodation by MCL. In the said meeting, the residents of village Hensamul who were on strike consented to call off the strike and co-operate with the MCL Management in smooth operation of mine. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that basing upon the decision made in various meetings held with Sub- Collector, Talcher on 06.07.2014 and 31.07.2014, as well as the Minister of Energy, the Respondent No.1 issued a letter dt.31.07.2014 to the Appellants individually accepting the Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 20 of 135 decisions made and requested them to join in service immediately and vacate the houses and homestead land and hand over it to MCL for continuation of mining operation of Bhubaneswari OCP, latest by 31.10.2014. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that pursuant to the letter dt.31.07.2014, allotment of quarters to the Appellants were issued on 15.9.2014, 23.9.2014 & 28.9.2014. In spite of the allotment of quarters, neither the Appellants came forward to occupy the quarters nor vacated their homestead lands and houses, rather created problem for operation of the mines. The Appellants through their family members and relatives created problem and made dharna in the mines on 31.10.2014 and damaged some machineries in the mining site, and the mining operation was hampered. This incident was brought to the notice of the police by filing FIR on 01.11.2014. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the conduct of the Appellants was derogative since they obstructed the mining operation and damaged the machineries even after the interim order was passed by this Court on 29.10.2014. Even though the Respondents were co-operating with the Appellants and the decisions of the State Authorities, it is not understood what the intention of the Appellants was. According to the Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 21 of 135 Respondents, the Appellants were not interested to vacate their homestead lands and houses, after getting the reinstatement order dt.22.07.2014 and joining in the service on dt.30.07.2014. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the due to the conduct of the Appellants, the MCL could not be able to produce adequate quantity of coal and by that process, would not be able to supply coal to various power plants of the country, for which the power plants would not able to generate adequate electricity and at large the public would suffer. If the Appellants would not vacate the houses and homestead lands and stayed there, their safety would be at a stake since the mining operation of Bhubaneswari OCP, was going on adjacent to their houses. Moreover, if they would not vacate their houses and homestead lands, the mining operation would come to halt and by that process, there would be loss of production and loss of revenue to the Government and more importantly the public at large would suffer. 5. Rejoinder affidavit was filed by the Appellants in the writ petition to the counter affidavit, wherein it is stated, inter alia, that the acceptance of the resettlement site at Gurujang was not with relation to the area of the Appellants i.e. Talasahi in the village of Hensamul. Village Hensamul consisted of three Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 22 of 135 parts namely, Talasahi, Saharasahi and Baidyasahi and in relation to the villagers of Hensamul accepting the resettlement site at Gurujang was never in connection with the villagers of Talasahi. At no point of time, the land oustees of village Hensamul (Talasahi) had accepted Gurujang as the site for the purposes of their resettlement. As a matter of fact, the action of the issuance of notices in favour of the Appellants and other land oustees of the village regarding vacation of their respective dwelling houses by the Respondents, was the subject matter of challenge in a separate writ application, wherein the selection of resettlement site at Gurujang by the Respondents without consulting and discussing about the feasibility and workability of the same with the members of the families who have been displaced by virtue of the acquisition effected by the Respondents in different phases was under challenge. It is stated in the Rejoinder Affidavit that as per Clause 8 of the R & R Policy, 2006, site of resettlement habitat shall be selected by the RPDAC in consultation with the displaced families. It is stated in the rejoinder affidavit that the acceptance of the resettlement site at Gurujang by the Appellants and other land oustees is incorrect as the finalization of the resettlement site at the said place was made without any consultation with the Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 23 of 135 members of the land oustees and accordingly, unsustainable in law as the same was done in contravention to the guidelines issued under the R & R Policy, 2006. It is further stated in the rejoinder affidavit that when the resettlement site at Gurujang was decided by the Respondents without consultation and discussion with the members of the displaced communities and the said site was never acceded to by the Appellants and other land oustees of the said village for the purposes of their resettlement, there was no question of ensuring the habitability at the resettlement site for the occupation of the land oustees by the Respondents. The resettlement site at Gurujang was decided by the authorities without consultation and discussion with the land oustees and therefore, there arises no question of accepting plots made available for occupation of the land oustees at Gurujang by the Respondents and that the allegations leveled against the Appellants and land oustees regarding their approach in not vacating their residential plots in spite of the Respondents in having offered them plots at the resettlement site is an act of manifest misrepresentation of facts. It is further stated in the rejoinder affidavit that the Respondents had fixed a target of excavation of 25 million tons Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 24 of 135 of coal per annum over the agricultural and homestead lands of the land oustees, which had been made a reality with the co- operation of the villagers who had consented to such acquisition in different phases by the Respondents. It is further stated in the rejoinder affidavit that the very issuance of the letter of termination under clauses (3) and (4) by the Respondents is an act of palpable arbitrariness in as much as the as the language of clauses 3 and 4 are crystal clear on the fact that the recorded tenants would have to vacate their homestead lands and houses within 90 days of receipt of resettlement benefits. Therefore, in view of the fact that no plots were allotted to the Appellants as part of their resettlement dues in the absence of finalization of the resettlement site, the Appellants and other land oustees who were employees under the Rehabilitation scheme, could not have been terminated from their services in the guise of having violated the clauses (3) and (4) of their appointment letters. The act of the Respondents in terminating the services of the rehabilitated land oustees of the said village was the subject matter of challenge before this Court in W.P.(C) No.9477 of 2014. It is further stated in the rejoinder affidavit that the Appellants refused to sign on any affidavit as per the conditions Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 25 of 135 of the Respondents, since the reinstatement orders were passed in accordance with the decisions taken by the Sub-Collector in the meeting dated 06.07.2014 and there was nothing relating to the signing of an affidavit accepting the conditions of the Respondents in the said meeting. In relation to the averments taken in the counter affidavit that it was decided to phase-wise vacate the homestead lands at village Hensamul by 31.10.2014 subject to arrangement of interim accommodation by the Respondents in the meeting presided by the Sub-Collector on 31.07.2014, it is stated in the rejoinder affidavit that when the aforementioned decision to vacate the homestead lands on phase-wise basis was taken on the meeting dated 31.07.2014, it was a matter of inconceivable perplexity for the Appellants to fathom that a decision to the said extent was taken by the Respondents and communicated to the Appellants in the letters of reinstatement dated 22.07.2014, which was obviously prior to the meeting with the Sub-Collector dated 31.07.2014 wherein the said decision was taken and decided to be implemented by the Respondents by way of incorporating the same in their conditions. It is further stated in the rejoinder affidavit that the Appellants and other land oustees of village Hensamul (Talasahi) Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 26 of 135 have not been allotted their respective lands as part of their entitlement under the resettlement policy of the Government and in absence of even the resettlement site situated in front of Balanda College been cleared by the Forest Department for use of the land with regard to non-forest use, it is an act of manifest arbitrariness and recalcitrance to guidelines governing the procedure to be adopted by the authorities for the purposes of rehabilitation and resettlement prescribed by the Government, by the Respondents in forcing the Appellants to vacate their homestead lands. It is further stated in the rejoinder affidavit that Appellants and other land oustees of the concerned village never created problems and staged a dharna at the mining site on 31.10.2014. The Respondents have resorted to similar techniques in the past by way of filing F.I.R. before the concerned I.I.C. to pose difficulties in the way of the Appellants and other land oustees of the village when no such act has been committed by them. It is stated that the land oustees of village Hensamul (Talasahi) were ready and willing to vacate their homestead lands subject to fulfillment of the guidelines governing the procedure to be adopted by the Respondents in allotting them their respective lands in the resettlement site in Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 27 of 135 the front of Balanda College by way of obtaining clearance from the concerned department for the purpose of usage of the same for non-forest use, pursuant to which, the Appellants shall vacate their homestead lands and move to the interim accommodation provided by the Respondents in the interim period till the time the resettlement site is made habitable by the Respondents. 6. Additional affidavit was filed by the Respondents in the writ petition, wherein it is stated, inter alia, that land measuring of 385.88 Acres were acquired under L.A. Act and 1653.325 Acres were acquired under the CBA Act of village Hensamul. So far as the acquisition of land of village Hensamul under CBA Act is concerned, first the acquired land was vested to the Central Government under section 10 of the CBA Act, free from all encumbrances. Under section 11 of the CBA Act, the Central Government divested the acquired land under section 10 in favour of the MCL (previously CCL thereafter SECL) starting from dt.09.11.1978 and the last being on dt.31.08.2004. Thus, the Appellants cannot claim any relief under the R & R Policy, 2006. It is stated in the additional affidavit that so far as acquisition of land under L.A. Act of village Hensamul is concerned, the possession of lands was taken by the MCL by Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 28 of 135 11.03.2005 and possession of only a small portion of land measuring Ac.73.39 was taken on 27.09.2008 which were only agricultural lands. The houses and homestead lands of village Hensamul were acquired and possession was taken much before 2004 under the C.B.A. Act. The Appellants were creating trouble in not vacating the houses and homestead lands claiming to avail the benefits under R & R Policy, 2006, which should not be entertained. It is further stated in the additional affidavit that since the notification to acquire the agricultural land and homestead land was much prior to 14.05.2006 i.e., the date when R & R Policy, 2006 came into force, the Appellants have no right to claim any benefits under 2006 Policy. 7. The learned Single Judge considering the fact that lands of the Appellants had already been acquired and that they had been paid the land acquisition compensation amount besides employment being provided to them and since they have also been provided with alternate accommodation in the quarters of the MCL, did not find any merit in the claim of the Appellants. It was observed that the Appellants have no right to claim that they would vacate the homestead lands under their occupation only after they were provided with alternate house sites, which Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 29 of 135 has no legs to stand. Recording the submission of MCL authority that they were under process of allotting the alternate sites and the same is being delayed for some technical reasons, the learned Single Judge directed the State authority to co-operate with the MCL authority in the matter of finalization of the alternate sites under the particular rehabilitation package. However, keeping in view that the MCL Company is in urgent need of mining in the locality, which was definitely in the larger interest of the country and further keeping in view that the MCL Company had already made quarters available for accommodation of the Appellants till they were provided with alternate accommodation sites, the learned Single Judge was not inclined to grant reliefs sought for by the Appellants and
Decision
accordingly, dismissed the writ petition vide impugned judgment and order dated 13.01.2015. 8. The Writ Appeal was filed on 22.01.2015 to set aside judgment and order dated 13.01.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge and for a direction to the Respondents not to take any coercive action against the Appellants by evicting them from their dwelling houses and/or by terminating their employment, till they are physically allotted plots in the resettlement site. Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 30 of 135 During pendency of the Writ Appeal, an additional affidavit was filed by the Appellants on 06.09.2017, wherein it was indicated that pursuant to the filing of the Writ Appeal, several meetings were held between the State Government, MCL Authorities and the villagers of Hensamul (Talasahi) regarding shifting, rehabilitation and resettlement issues and eviction of encroachment over the disputed lands. On 16.02.2015, a meeting was held at the official chamber of the Sub-Collector, Talcher wherein the Sub-Collector, Talcher requested both MCL and the villagers to sort out the issues between them amicably and in the same meeting, it was resolved that since the Writ Appeal is pending before this Court, the final decision of this Court shall be binding on both the villagers and MCL. Another meeting of MCL was held on 17.06.2015 in the Collectorate, Angul wherein a detailed discussion was made regarding the cut- off date of village Hensamul, implementation of R & R Policy, 2006, shifting of village Hensamul (Talasahi) and other issues of village Hensamul. Similarly, one meeting was held on 29.10.2015 wherein discussion was made on PDF list, shifting of village Hensamul (Talasahi) to the resettlement site located in front of Balanda College and other issues. The important factor of the meeting was that the Sub-Collector, Talcher requested the Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 31 of 135 villagers to shift to the temporary accommodation provided by MCL immediately for greater interest to which the villagers responded that they would shift to the resettlement site once the same is ready as per their demand. On 02.11.2015, a meeting was held by MCL between its CGM/GMs wherein it was resolved that shifting of Talasahi and Saharsahi should be expedited and the existing R & R Policy, 2006 should be implemented in finalizing the benefits to the displaced persons. On 13.11.2015, another meeting was held regarding 3rd Project Level Rehabilitation and Resettlement Committee of Jagannath Area, MCL wherein shifting of P.D.Fs. of Hensamul (Talasahi) to the allotted transit quarters, development of R & R site for PDFs of village Hensamul, Talasahi were discussed. Regarding shifting of village (Talasahi), a meeting was convened by the Collector, Angul on 02.02.2016, wherein it was held that 106 plots have been demarcated in the resettlement site as per approved lay out plan which were free from encroachments and another encroach free land for 21 plots was required to accommodate the balance 127 project displaced families of village Hensamul (Talasahi). On 29.03.2016, a meeting was held in the office of the Sub-Collector, Talcher regarding the shifting of village Hensamul (Talasahi) under the Chairmanship of Sub-Collector, Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 32 of 135 Talcher. After substantial discussion, the Sub-Collector, Talcher had suggested few points to facilitate the shifting of Hensamul (Talasahi) village which was accepted by MCL. The points are discussed below: I. The GM, Jagannath Area would follow up the transfer case of Sri Parsuram Sahoo as discussed in the meeting held under the Chairmanship of Collector, Angul on 23.02.2016 in the presence of Director Technical (P&P) and Director Personnel, MCL Headquarter; II. The PDF list would be finalised as early as possible. The special LAO (MCL) would call a meeting of GM (L & R) and village representatives of Hensamul (Talasahi) to finalise the list as per procedure; III. The GM, Jagannath Area will take initiative for eviction of the encroachers of the Balanda rehabilitation site to make the required plots free to accommodate the land losers of Hensamul after finalization of PDF list. The survey of the encroachers would be done within ten days in co-ordination with the local Revenue Inspector, Ghantapada Circle. Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 33 of 135 Survey of the encroachers who have encroached the area approved by TAMDA would only be made to make it easier for eviction; IV. The GM, Jagannath Area would take proactive step for shifting of the existing Gram Panchayat office and High School in consultation with the EDO, Talcher, District Education Officer, Angul, Tahasildar, Talcher, village representative and President of the School within the time bound manner; V. As decided in the meeting held under the Chairmanship of Collector, Angul on 21.03.2016, the 2006 R & R Policy would be applicable in case of eligible families after receipt of clearance from higher quarters; VI. After finalization of PDF list and development of the resettlement site in front of Balanda College, the villagers would vacate the village within a specified time; VII. It is broadly agreed by both MCL and village representatives of Hensamul (Talasahi) that after the finalization of PDF list and development of the resettlement site for them in front of Balanda Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 34 of 135 College, the villagers would shift to the new site as early as possible. On 25.11.2016, the Collector, Angul sent a letter to the General Manager, Jagannath Area, MCL, Talcher informing therein that during the visit on 16.11.2016 to the resettlement site in front of Balanda College for the PDFs of village Hensamul (Talasahi), it could be noticed that no work was going on at the site. The works such as road, drain, water supply and electricity were yet to be started in spite of several persuasions and discussions. The PDFs village Hensamul (Talasahi) are losing faith and confidence on MCL for such inaction. The Collector, Angul requested therein in to take necessary steps and complete the minimum infrastructure development works immediately. In the Additional Affidavit, it is further stated that the Collector, Angul vide its letter dated 30.03.2017 addressed to the Sub-Collector, Talcher regarding the development of R & R site at Balanda for PAF of Hensamul village stated therein that G.M., Jagannath Area has requested vide letter dated 22.03.2017 to arrange for handing over the encroachment free land to MCL to complete the infrastructure development work in time at resettlement site in front of Balanda College. In the video conferencing held on 17.02.2017, it was decided that MCL to Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 35 of 135 complete infrastructure development work at the site by 15.05.2017. District Administration would take necessary steps to shift the PDFs of village Hensamul (Talasahi) to transit accommodation allotted by MCL w.e.f 15.06.2017 and also to take steps to evict the encroachers from the site w.e.f 15.03.2017 on payment of ex-gratia. However, not a single encroacher had vacated the encroached land. The Collector in such letter requested to take necessary steps and complete the eviction of encroachers from the Resettlement site immediately so as to hand over encroached free land to MCL for completion of infrastructure development work in the scheduled time i.e. 15.05.2017. In the Additional Affidavit, it is further stated that the General Manager, Jagannath Area vide its letter dated 16.05.2017 addressed to the District Collector, Angul informed therein that the development activities at Balanda R & R site are in progress and are in various stages of completion. The progress of main drain has been stopped since last four months due to non-removal of encroachment at the site and road work is also likely to be stopped, if the encroachment is not removed. At the end, it was requested to look into the matter and arrange for Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 36 of 135 handover the encroachment free land to MCL so that the balance R & R activities would be completed at the earliest. In the Additional Affidavit, it is further stated that on 27.05.2017, a meeting was convened at the office of the Sub- Collector, Angul regarding the difficulties faced by the villagers of Hensamul Village wherein the demands of the villagers were discussed and after a thorough discussion, it was concluded that since the year 2012, no steps has been taken by the authorities to resettle the villagers of Hensamul village in spite of repeated request, therefore, the villagers requested the officials to cooperate and take a decision. In the Additional Affidavit, it is further stated that the General Manager, Jagannath Area vide its letter dated 20.02.2017 addressed to the Special Land Acquisition Officer, MCL, Angul requested to take necessary steps for eviction of 164 encroachers at the R & R site for the scheduled completion of development works so that the shifting of the 105 employee families can be done smoothly. The Collector & District Magistrate, Angul vide its letter dated 02.06.2017 addressed to the Director, (Personal), MCL informed therein that MCL had not taken any effective step for vacation of the interim order granted by this Court in W.P.(C) Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 37 of 135 No.15881 of 2015 wherein this Hon‟ble Court had directed not to evict the petitioners therein i.e. the encroachers till the next date of listing, for which the District Administration is at stake and unable to render any assistance to the Project Officer -Cum- Estate Officer for eviction of 21 encroachers. It is further stated in the Additional Affidavit that on 09.06.2017, the General Manager, Jagannath Area sent letter to the Director Technical (Operation), MCL HQ, Burla informing therein that the issue regarding the Appellants‟ village has been finalized in the high-level meeting held with Chief Secretary, Govt. of Odisha, MLA, Talcher and CMLD, MCL. MCL management in the said meeting also requested to allow the balance 30 hectares of land at Coal Stockyard No.08 which was turned down by the MLA and the villagers. On 12.07.2017, a meeting was convened between the M.L.A, Talcher, Superintendent of Police, Angul and Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, MCL wherein the Sub- Collector, Talcher informed the House that due to the non- finalization of the demands of the above village in time, the coal production and smooth transportation of coal had been stopped, which created law and order situation as well as loss of revenue to both Govt. of India and State. Therefore, he requested the Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 38 of 135 House to finalize the village wise issue for smooth running of coal mining projects in Talcher Coalfields area and to avoid unhealthy situation. In the said meeting, the village of the Appellants also found place at Sl. No.7. While discussing about the same, the authorities decided that steps to be taken to evict the encroachers either on payment of ex-gratia sanctioned by the MCL or as per law and that the villages should shift to transit accommodation provided by MCL immediately and to allow the proposed area for extraction of coal for the interest of nation. It is stated in the Additional Affidavit that the land in dispute had been encroached upon by the encroachers and MCL had not made any endeavours to remove such encroachment from the resettlement site in front of Balanda College. The Kisam of the land being jungle together with illegal encroachment which were yet to be evicted by following due process of law and there existed no definite time within which, the resettlement site could be finalised and the Appellants could be physically allotted with their respective plots. It is stated in the Additional Affidavit that the contention of the MCL that such situation was prevalent due to the action of the Appellants in not vacating land which was affecting the coal production thereby, hampering the interest of Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 39 of 135 the Country is per se misconceived and frivolous, which was evident from the reports from the year 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015- 16 and 2016-17. The affected persons were not rehabilitated and resettled and that there was no urgency of evicting them without fulfilling prior commitments made by the Respondents. It is stated in the Additional Affidavit that the Appellants without having received the benefits under the policy and physical allotment of lands at resettlement site, the conditions imposed by the Respondents in directing the Appellants to vacate their homestead lands was in blatant violation of not only their own terms and conditions but also the R & R Policy, 2006. 9. In pursuance of the order dated 20.09.2022, the Respondents filed an affidavit dated 12.01.2023, wherein it is stated that all the Appellants had been allotted plots in the resettlement site vide plot allotments letters dt.22.12.20I9 and the same have been received by the Appellants. Out of the 102 appellants who have been allotted plots at the Balanda resettlement site, 21 appellants (i.e., appellant nos.5, 40, 42, 43, 45, 47, 52, 54, 57, 62, 68, 69, 73, 74, 79, 80, 91, 93, 95, 99 and 102) had already constructed houses over the plots allotted to them/constructing houses over Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 40 of 135 the plots allotted to them and that out of the aforesaid Appellants, the Appellant no.80 i.e., Sanata Kumar Biswal had started living in the house constructed over the plot allotted to him. All the eligible Appellants had been allotted quarters in various localities/colonies of MCL and a majority of the Appellants are staying in the said quarters allotted to them by MCL as an alternative site in lieu of the plots allotted to them. In the affidavit, it is further stated that almost all the plots allotted to the Appellants are free from all encumbrance. Only five plots allotted to Appellant nos.9, 19, 22, 28 and 31 have been encroached which has been made by a private school i.e., Nigamananda Little Star School (hereinafter for short „NLS School‟) and that the said school had been issued notice for eviction u/s.12 of the CBA Act, which has been challenged by the said school in a writ petition bearing W.P. (C) No.8549 of 2019 before this Court. Those five Appellants have been provided accommodation in the quarters of MCL colonies and they are staying in the said quarters. In the affidavit, it is further stated that even though resettlement plots have been allotted to the Appellants and many of the Appellants have constructed houses over the plots and almost all the Appellants are staying in the alternative Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 41 of 135 accommodation provided by the Respondents in the quarters of MCL colonies, the Appellants are not vacating their homestead lands and not handing over possession in Hensamul (Talasahi), which was causing a great hindrance to the progress of Bhubaneswari Open Cast Project Coal Mines. It is further stated in the affidavit that the mining face of Bhubaneswari OCP had reached near the residential houses in Hensamul (Talasahi). As the Appellants are neither vacating nor handing over their homestead lands in Hensamul (Talasahi), the mining activity in Bhubaneswari OCP is being seriously affected and within a short span of time, it would come to a standstill position. It is further stated in the affidavit that Bhubaneswari OCP is one of the biggest coal mines in Asia with a production capacity of 28 million tones and is of strategic national significance as major coal excavated from this mine was being transported to major power houses producing electricity in India. If the Appellants would not vacate their homestead lands and buildings standing over there, the coal production in one of the biggest coal mines in Asia i.e., Bhubaneswari OCP will come to a standstill which may lead to power crises. Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 42 of 135 It is further stated in the affidavit that the resettlement site provided to the Appellants had basic amenities such as road, electricity, boundary wall, concrete drainage network, club house, Jagnya Mandap etc. In view of the resettlement plots allotted to the Appellants, the prayer of the Appellants in the writ appeal being not to take any coercive actions against the Appellants by evicting them from their dwelling houses and/or by terminating their employment till they are physically allotted plots in resettlement site has become infructuous. It is further stated in the affidavit that if the Appellants did not vacate their homestead lands and buildings standing thereon in Hensamul (Talasahi), the coal production in Bhubaneswari OCP would be seriously affected and would come to a standstill position which might lead to power crises all over the nation. Therefore, the Appellants are to be directed to vacate their homestead lands and buildings standing thereon at Hensamul (Talasahi) and hand over possession of the same to the Respondents at the earliest. 10. The Appellants filed objection affidavit dated 23.03.2023 to the affidavit dated 12.01.2023 filed by the Respondents, wherein it is stated that though the stand has been Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 43 of 135 taken by the MCL that Appellants had been allotted with plots in the resettlement site vide plot allotment letter dated 22/12/2019, however, those allotments have only been carried out on documents but not in physical form and those sites are not free from series of impediments both in the form of feasibility, encroachment and encumbrances. MCL has not yet cleared the encroachments over the Balanda Resettlement site. There are fifteen numbers of plots in Balanda Resettlement Site which have not been allotted in as much as, possession has not been delivered due to the pendency of W.P.(C) No.8549 of 2019 filed by one of the encroacher NLS School against the State of Odisha objecting to their eviction. The said NLS School is existing over 15 plots i.e. Plot No.128, 129, 130, 131, 141, 140, 139, 138, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 121, 122 situated in the Balanda Re-settlement site. In the said writ petition, this Court has passed an interim order of status quo which is continuing. It is further stated in the objection affidavit that there has been no construction of drainage/sewerage by MCL in the allotted sites. Owing to dispute between the contractor responsible for those civic constructions and MCL which is pending before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) in Civil Suit No.410 of 2019 and C.S.(III)/608/2021 pending before the Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 44 of 135 learned Commercial Court, Cuttack, such work is not gaining any progress. Due to non-development of main drainage over the site which is constructed, development works in respect of seven plots i.e. Plot No.99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104 and 105 have not taken place. It is further stated in the objection affidavit that the tenders have been called for and works have been awarded to contractors to undertake site levelling work as plots are low causing water logging. Such levelling work is ongoing and the same would take more time to make it feasible for homestead purpose. Furthermore, basic amenities such as drinking water, electrification and road have not been developed. Though contractors were engaged to perform those works but no such work has commenced. In the 12th RPDAC meeting held on 31.08.2021, it was decided by the RDC in respect of such agenda vide Sl. No.15 that MCL is to complete all the infrastructures and development works within one month along with basic amenities etc., and take steps for shifting of the PDFs. The left-out claims for employment issues of Hensamul (Talasahi) shall be placed before a joint committee under the chairmanship of Sub-Collector, Talcher for finalization. Till date, no action has been taken by the Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 45 of 135 district administration for providing employment to the eligible family members of the Appellants under rehabilitation benefits. The minutes of meeting dated 26.10.2021 which was held for discussion of temporary shifting of Panchayat Office of Hensamul (Tahasil), has already been shifted with 14 families with their dwelling houses, Shiva Temple & Pond to cooperate the MCL Management to achieve their targeted coal production, but in return, till date both resettlement & rehabilitation has not yet been finalised. It is further stated in the objection affidavit that though the resettlement plots were allotted, but till date, no action had been taken to provide Record of Rights to the land oustees. The said land was acquired by under the CBA Act, thus appropriate steps were to be taken to refer the matter to the State Government for issuance of Record of Rights, however, no such steps were taken to such effect. It is further stated in the objection affidavit that the stand taken by the Respondents that out of 102 Appellants, 21 Appellants have constructed houses and Appellant No.80 Sanata Kumar Biswal has started living in the house constructed over the plot allotted to him, is not correct. In fact, 21 Appellants have started construction which are not yet to be completed and Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 46 of 135 even if those constructions would be completed, they cannot reside there due to lack of basic civil infrastructure such as water supply, drainage, electricity connection, roads etc. So far as the Appellant No.80 is concerned, he is unable to shift to his house for the lack of the aforementioned facilities in the area. It is further stated in the objection affidavit that the stand taken by the Respondents that majority of the Appellants were staying in the quarters allotted to them by MCL as an alternative site in lieu of the plots allotted to them is incorrect. Those quarters were allotted to the MCL employees as a course of their employment, but not as an alternative site in lieu of plots. The quarters are small in size and cannot cater the household goods, assets and cattle of the land oustees. In fact, all the family members were required to be fit in those tiny quarters which were never meant to be an alternative site. Only six nos. of families were provided with Company alternative accommodation at the time of shifting of Panchayat Office & fourteen nos. of families to facilitate the mines for its coal production. It is further stated in the objection affidavit that the stand taken by the Respondents that almost all the plots are free from all encumbrances and only five plots allotted to the Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 47 of 135 Appellant Nos.9, 19, 22, 28 and 31 have been encroached is not correct. There are litigations pending with respect to the lands, wherein interim orders have been passed. CMD MCL assured to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh only) to each of the encroachers which was also accepted by the encroachers. After disposal of the W.P. (C) No.15881 of 2015, 87 encroachers over the Balanda site have accepted the compensation amount and have vacated. So far as the stand taken that five appellants had been provided with quarters, it is stated that those quarters are employees‟ quarters and not allotted as an alternative site in lieu of the land allotted to them. It is stated that the production of MCL has increased substantially in the recent years and they are comfortably meeting their targets, thus the stand taken by MCL that the Appellants were responsible for the loss to MCL is not correct. It is stated that the said Jagnya Ghar was constructed by the land oustees and not by MCL. The club shown at Balanda R & R site is at a dilapidated condition and cannot be used. The road and electrification shown is an attempt to confuse this Hon’ble Court. MCL is only showing the parts which are favourable to them and not the actual facts. In majority part of the sites, only electric polls have been installed and there is no Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 48 of 135 electricity connection, not even wire connection has been provided. MCL is trying to play with the interest of land oustees who have been fighting battles for their entitlement in lieu of their lands. It is stated that the writ petition was disposed of in view of the fact that MCL had already made quarters available for accommodation of the Appellants till they were provided with alternate accommodation sites, however, no site was available for taking over physical possession so as to stay in those sites. As a matter of fact, the quarters were also not safe for staying which would be evident from the letters issued by MCL itself. In addition thereto, there is no certain timeline fixed either by this Court or by MCL by which time the resettlement/shifting shall be undertaken from the interim quarters. It is admitted fact that the Collector has not issued the completion of Resettlement Work Certificate as per Clause 8 of the R & R Policy, 2006, thus, the Resettlement work is not yet over. The MCL is required to take necessary steps to remove the encroachers from the rehabilitation sites. The development work such as drainage, sewerage, ground levelling work, connecting roads and facilities such as drinking water and electricity supply etc. are to be completed as early as possible. Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 49 of 135 11. The Respondents filed the reply on 04.07.2023 to the objection affidavit dated 23.03.2023 of the Appellants, wherein it is stated that after getting all the benefits such as land compensation, employment and residential quarters, the Appellants were not vacating the homestead lands deliberately and creating hindrance to the mining activities for which the Respondents sustained huge loss as well as loss to the public exchequer. The Appellants have been allotted plots in the resettlement site vide plot allotments letters dated 22.12.2019 and the same have been received by the Appellants. Out of the 102 Appellants, who have been allotted plots at the Balanda resettlement site, 21 Appellants i.e. Appellant nos.5, 40, 42, 43, 45, 47, 52, 54, 57, 62, 68, 68, 73, 74, 79, 80, 91, 93, 95, 99 and 102 have already constructed houses over the plots allotted to them/constructing houses over the plots allotted to them and out of the aforesaid Appellants, the Appellant no.80 Sanata Kumar Biswal has started living in the house constructed over the plot allotted to him and all the eligible appellants had been allotted quarters in various localities/colonies of MCL and a majority of the Appellants are staying in the said quarters allotted to them by MCL as an alternative arrangement. Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 50 of 135 It is stated that almost all the plots allotted to the Appellants are free from all encumbrance and only 6 plots allotted to the Appellant nos.9, 19, 22, 28, 31 and 82 have been encroached. The said encroachment has been done by a private school and the said school has been issued notice for eviction under section 12 of the CBA Act, which was challenged by the said school in W.P.(C) No.8549 of 2019, which is pending for disposal. It is stated that the resettlement site at Balanda has been provided to the Appellants with basic amenities such as concrete road, electricity, boundary wall, club house etc. and other amenities which are not been completed, would be completed in course of shifting of the Appellants to the R & R site. The Appellants have been allotted plots in the resettlement site and almost all the plots allotted to the Appellants are free from any encumbrance. Out of total 154 plots, only 12 plots i.e. plot nos.128, 129, 130, 131, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144 and 145 were having encroachment by a private school, namely, NLS School not fifteen plots as stated by the Appellants. The encroachment has been done by NLS School and out of those twelve plots, only six plots have been allotted to Appellant nos.9, 19, 22, 28, 31 and 82 are under encroachment. Many of the Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 51 of 135 Appellants have constructed houses over the plots and all the Appellants are staying in the company quarters provided by MCL, but the Appellants are not vacating their homestead lands stating they were staying in the village. It is further stated that the Appellants along with their families are staying in the temporary accommodation quarters allotted to them. However, the parents of some of the Appellants are still residing at Hensamul (Talasahi) even after getting all the benefits as per the policies prevalent at the relevant point of time. It is further stated that a total 6769.50 mtrs. of drainage/sewerage work has been completed and balance drainage/sewerage work of 1085 mtrs. are yet to be completed in the R & R site. The constructions of drainage, sewerage near seven plots stated in the petition have not been made but MCL has initiated process for construction of different infrastructures at Balanda R & R site including aforesaid drainage and sewerage works. The dispute between the contractor and MCL is pending before the Commercial Court, Cuttack vide C.S. No.318 of 2019 but the same would not affect the developmental works at the site. Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 52 of 135 It is further stated that the leveling works has been completed at the site and the site is ready to use for homestead purpose. With regard to providing basic amenities such as drinking water, the MoU between MCL and RWSS division, Angul has been executed for providing drinking water to the R & R site and accordingly, Executive Engineer (RWSS) has issued a work order to the contractor and MCL has already released an amount of Rs.2.18 crores towards first installment on dated 03.03.2022 and 70% of pipeline laying work i.e. 5219.00 mtrs. has been completed by RWSS and 80% of construction work of underground reservoir and 50% work of construction of overhead tank has been completed. Notwithstanding provision of RWSS to provide drinking water to the site, the villagers are being supplied water at their existing places of stay through portable water tankers and they shall continue to be supplied water till commencing of RWSS. So far as construction of road is concerned, it is stated that 3280.61 mtrs. of concrete road has already been completed in the R & R site and balance 955.00 mtrs. is yet to be completed. MCL has initiated a scheme for construction of different infrastructures at Balanda R & R site including concrete road works. Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 53 of 135 So far as electrification work is concerned, Tata power has completed 70% of the total work which includes 11 KV new line shifting (length 0.550 km.), distribution, transformer, preliminary work for installation, erection of 40 nos. poles of Low voltage transmission (LT) lines and removal of old 11 KV line from the R & R site etc. and the rest of the work is pending due to hindrance caused by the villagers of Hensamul (Talasahi). The TPCODL has stocked up the materials like poles, cables and transformers at the resettlement site, but the TPCODL intimated through mail dated 06.05.2023 that due to non-clearance of the site, the execution of works at the site has been stopped. It is stated that to complete the development works at remaining places, a joint team comprising of Survey, Civil, L & R & E & M department personnel along with representatives of Tata Power went to the Balanda resettlement site on 24th March 2023 for completion of the development works at the remaining places and subsequently, on 31st May 2023 for measuring and demarcation works, but the villagers of Hensamul (Talasahi) prevented the team from the work and threatened the team to hold hostage and of dire consequences for which the team returned from the site to avoid any law and order situation. MCL Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 54 of 135 has also appraised the situation to the Sub-Collector, Talcher and sought his kind intervention in the matter for early resolution. After getting entire benefits such as compensation, employment, the Appellants and their family members along with villagers are deliberately and unlawfully restraining the MCL personnel and hindering the aforesaid development works with a malafide intention not to allow the MCL for mining. It is further stated that due to acquisition of village Hensamul (Talasahi), 321 employments/cash in lieu of employments have been provided by MCL as per Orissa R & R policies prevalent at the relevant point of time. There are no left out eligible cases for employments remained in the village as per the R & R policies, but the employment demands could not be embroiled into the matter of resettlement. The resettlement site has been provided with basic amenities such as road, electricity, boundary wall, drainage in most of the places which were free from encroachment, but due to encroachment of eight individuals and one private school, namely, NLS School over the remaining areas, the development works could not be completed at that time i.e. when the 12th RPDAC meeting took place 31.08.2021. Now, all the encroachers except NLS School have been shifted/evicted from the site and in the meanwhile, Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 55 of 135 necessary steps for drinking water and electrification works at the site taken by MCL and these works have been outsourced to RWSS and Tata Power for execution. It is further stated that twelve families have shifted and not fourteen families. Out of these twelve families, who have shifted, ten families i.e. Appellant nos.3, 4, 18, 20, 42, 43, 58, 70, 79 and 97 are the Appellants in the Writ Appeal. In spite of providing all the R & R benefits, still 143 PDFs remained to be shifted from the village. They have been raising irrelevant issues to justify their illegal holding onto the acquired land. Employment benefits and resettlement plots have been provided to these twelve families as per Odisha R & R policy and all these families have been provided company quarters for accommodation. It is further stated that the resettlement site at Balanda is situated over land acquired under CBA Act and there is no provision to issue RoR under CBA Act acquired land and as per guideline issued by the Ministry of Coal vide letter No.43022/1/2020-LAIR dated 22.04.2022, the land could be leased out to land oustees for 99 years. As per clause 4(5)(e) of the said guidelines, the allotted plots would be leased out in favour of respective allottees only after shifting of the Appellants Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 56 of 135 to the site. As such, plot allotment orders have already been issued in their names. It is stated that Appellant no.80 has constructed the house over his allotment plot in R & R site and was staying in the house and also rented out some part of the house, but after the issue ventilated before this Court by MCL, the said Appellant has now vacated his house in the R & R site and shifted and filed declaration in order to support the case of the Appellants. All the Appellants are allotted quarters for temporary accommodation till they shift to the R & R site. In the meanwhile, some of the Appellants have been allotted quarters as per their eligibility and they have been shifted to their allotted quarters from temporary accommodation (quarters). The resettlement site has been provided with basic amenities such as road, electricity, boundary wall and drainage in most of the places. It is stated that the leveling works has been completed at the site and with regard to providing basic amenities such as drinking water, a MoU between MCL and RWSS division, Angul was signed for providing drinking water to the site and accordingly, Executive Engineer (RWSS) has issued a work order to the contractor dated 15.09.2022 and in that respect, the MCL has also released an amount of Rs.2.18 crores Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 57 of 135 towards first instalment. The declaration filed by the Appellants is only with an intention to create hindrance in mining activities. It is further stated that all the Appellants have been provided with temporary accommodations till the shifting to the R & R site and not in due course of their employment. Only six plots have been allotted to Appellant nos.9, 19, 22, 28, 31 and 82 and the same has been encroached by NLS School. Except that portion of land encroached by NLS School, other lands are free from encroachment and no case is pending for encroachment of the R & R site. These Appellants are staying in the company quarters provided by MCL as temporary accommodation and only NLS School‟s case vide W.P.(C) No.8549 of 2019 is pending for disposal. So far as W.P.(C) No.9006 of 2019 is concerned, the same has been disposed of and the appeal under section 9 of the PP Act, 1971 preferred by one Sagar Naik and another before the learned A.D.J., Talcher and the same has also been dismissed as withdrawn and they have vacated from the encroached area. It is further stated that Bhubaneswari OCP is one of the biggest coal mines in India with a production capacity of 28 million tons and also major coal excavated from the mine is being transported to major power houses producing electricity in Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 58 of 135 India. Last year owing non-vacation of acquired village land by the villagers, MCL faced with tough task of achieving coal production target to supply coal to power houses, but under exigency circumstances, MCL had to scramble through whatever little possible patches of land available in the mine to somehow reach the production target with great difficulty. In the current Financial Year, the production of the mine has been reduced to more than 50% due to exigency of land with no other alternatives available. MCL might not achieve the coal production target due to non-availability of the land of village Hensamul (Talasahi) and therefore, it is very urgent and necessary to shift the villagers from Hensamul (Talasahi) to the R & R site for continuance supply of coal to the power producing industries. It is further stated that the resettlement site at Balanda has been provided to the Appellants with basic amenities such as road, electricity, boundary wall, drainage in most of the places and total 6769.50 mtrs. of drainage/sewerage work has been completed and balance drainage/sewerage work of 1085 mtrs. is yet to be completed in the R & R site and 3280.61 mtrs. of concrete road has already been completed in the R & R site and balance 955.00 mtrs. is yet to be completed. The club house was constructed in the year 2016 in R & R site Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 59 of 135 with all the basic facilities, but it has been remaining unutilized till date for which some facilities/accessories of the club house has been damaged and the same would be renovated before shifting of the villagers to the R & R site. So far as construction of road, MCL has initiated a scheme for construction of different infrastructures at Balanda R & R site including drainage and sewerage works. All these families have been provided company quarters for accommodation and they are staying in these quarters with their families. All the Appellants have been provided with R & R benefits including employment benefits and they have been allotted resettlement plots at Balanda resettlement site and for temporary accommodation, these Appellants have been provided company quarters and they are also staying in these quarters along with their families but they are deliberately not shifting to the R & R site. It is further stated that all the encroachers have been removed from the site except NLS School. The villagers are creating hindrances to complete the development works in the remaining places in the site and taking frivolous pleas not to vacate their homestead lands and they are creating hindrances in the progress of Bhubaneswari Mine which is a mega project of Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 60 of 135 India. Due to non-shifting of the villagers of Hensamul (Talasahi), the mine has come to standstill position and the basti of Hensamul (Talasahi) is situated at the edge of mine, which is very unsafe and endanger to the lives of the villagers as well as mine workers and thus, this Court might direct to the Appellants to vacate their homestead land as well as abstain from obstructing the development works at the R & R site for smooth operation of coal mines and if the Appellants did not vacate their homestead land and building standing thereon in Hensamul (Talasahi), the coal production in Bhubaneswari OCP would be seriously affected and would come to a standstill position which might lead to power crises all over the nation. 12. Appellants filed additional/reply affidavit dated 02.08.2023 to the reply affidavit dated 04.07.2023 filed by the Respondents, wherein it is stated that the Appellants along with other land oustees have not yet received basic amenities under the R & R Policy, 2006. It is stated that the Appellants along with other land oustees were always been cooperative with the Respondents and are eager to shift to the Balanda Resettlement Site. The Respondents are yet to provide the basic amenities such as electricity connection, connecting roads and other facilities such Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 61 of 135 as drinking water, etc. The developmental work like the ground leveling work, drainage and sewerage are yet to be completed. As the Balanda Resettlement site has not been live worthy even after a period of more than nine years, the Appellants who are willing and cooperative with the Respondent authorities are not able to relocate to the said site and due to such delay, the Appellants and other land oustees are not able to trust the conduct of the Respondent Authorities. It is further stated in the affidavit that no developmental work has been done since the month of March 2023 and considering the grievances of the villagers of the villages of Hensamul, Kalamachuin, Raghunathpur, Nakeipashi, Padmabatipur, Mahendrapur, Patharamunda and Chhelia (which have been acquired by MCL), a meeting was held on 08.06.2023 under the Chairmanship of the Collector, Angul, where the MLA, Talcher, Sub-Collector, Talcher, Special Land Acquisition Officer, MCL, Angul, Director (Technical), Director ( Personnel), MCL, Burla, General Manager, Jagannath Area, MCL, Talcher and other officials of MCL were present along with the representatives from the villages of the aforesaid villages. In the said meeting, a resolution was passed considering the facts and circumstances mentioned by the villagers and accepted by the authorities. The Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 62 of 135 decision relating to the present Appellants made in the said resolution dated 08.06.2023 is summarized as follows: i. MCL Authorities have to decide the Employment and PDF cases of the people of Hensamul village within a period of fifteen days and give a report to the District Administration; ii. An agreement is to be drawn between the NLS School and the MCL Authorities to shift them to a temporary accommodation and MCL Authorities shall provide them a temporary accommodation till the matter is disposed of by this Court; iii. There are allegations that the school building which has been constructed to shift the Panchayat High School, Hensamul, is of low quality. Hence, a Joint Committee including the representatives of the village, the authorities of MCL and the District Administration shall be constituted and the same committee shall submit a report on the issue. After delivery of possession of the Panchayat High School to the Government, the District Administration shall take steps to upgrade and repair the said school through Sarba Shiksha Abhiyan. It is also directed to Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 63 of 135 the MCL Authorities to complete the boundary wall of the newly constructed and inaugurated Panchayat High School, Hensamul and then shift the same from the old location to the new location; iv. The MCL Authorities have to take a decision in their Board in respect of the claim of 10 lakhs rupees each by the PDFs who have given their consent to receive the plots. It is noticed that the Balanda R & R Colony which is meant for the Hensamul (Talasahi) has not been provided with the basic amenities till date. Hence, it is directed to complete the same within a period of one month; v. The grievances of the people in relation to Rehabilitation, Employment and Resettlement are to be mitigated by the Director (Technical) and Director (Personnel), MCL, Burla; vi. MCL is directed to release the compensation amount to the public as early as possible in the event the MCL Authorities have already made a decision to give solatium and interest on the assessed value of the houses on the Government Land; Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 64 of 135 vii. The MCL Authorities have to take steps in obtaining ROR and NOC for the Panchayat High School and constructing the boundary wall after consultation with Sub-Collector, Talcher and SDPO, Talcher. Pursuant to the said meeting, the villagers of Hensamul provided MCL Authorities with an area of approximately 40 Acres for the purposes of mining and the building of Panchayat High School, Hensamul and Nodal U.P. School, Hensamul, which were located within such area were demolished. It is further stated in the affidavit that the Respondents have portrayed incorrect facts regarding the completion of land filling in the low-line areas in the Balanda R & R Colony in order to cloud the judgment of this Court. The Appellants have been provided with the description of work allotted to the Contractor with the issuance of the work order dated 21.02.2022 and the Summary Report of the Balanda R & R site filling dated 25.05.2023 and the same shows that only a volume of 20531.88 Cubic Meters out of 54013 Cubic meters has been filled. The Project Engineer in his letter dated 27.07.2023 addressed to the contractor responsible for the earth filling at R Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 65 of 135 & R site has admitted that only 31% work has been completed. The Respondents have not completed the works in relation to the basic amenities and that the Collector has not issued the Completion of Resettlement Work Certificate as per clause 8 of the R & R Policy, 2006, which along with the clause 4 of the resolution of the meeting dated 08.06.2023. It is further stated in the reply affidavit that the Respondents have stated that all the Appellants have been allotted with plots in the resettlement site vide Plot Allotment Letter dated 22.12.2019 but such statement is taken by the Respondents only to cloud the judgment of this Court. In fact, the Respondents have only allotted those plots on paper. It is further stated that in the affidavit dated 04.07.2023 filed by the Respondents, it is stated that out of 102 Appellants, 21 Appellants have constructed houses and Appellant No.80 has started living in the house constructed over the plot allotted to him, but those 21 Appellants have recently started construction which is not yet complete. Even if those constructions would be completed, but they could not reside there due to lack of basic civil infrastructure such as water supply, drainage, electricity connection, roads etc. As far as Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 66 of 135 Appellant no.80 is concerned, he is unable to shift to his house for the lack of the aforementioned facilities in the area. It is stated in the reply affidavit that there are 15 plots including the land encroached by the NLS School, which have not been made encroachment free. The Respondents have also not cleared the encroachment made by the Police Garage and Police Utility Centre situated at Plot No.121 and 122 which is evident from the letter of Project Engineer (Civil), BBSRI OCP to M/s. BMS Construction where it is clearly stated that only 26% of the work is complete. Plot No.99 has a dilapidated building, which was used as an Anganwadi has not been cleared from encroachment and Plot Nos.100 to 105 which are yet to be demarcated. The demarcation of such plots are dependent upon completion work of the main drain and the main drain work has come to stand still since 2016 due to the non-completion of the land filling work. The stand taken by the Respondents that all the plots in the Balanda R & R site are encroachment free from all encumbrances, are not correct. It is stated in the reply affidavit that the stand taken by the Respondents that a majority of the Appellants are staying in the quarters allotted to them by MCL as an alternative site in lieu of the plots allotted to them is not correct, but the same has Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 67 of 135 been made to mislead this Court and cloud its judgment. In fact, those quarters are allotted to the MCL employees as a course of their employment but not as an alternative site in lieu of plots. Those quarters are small in size and could not cater the household goods, assets and cattle of the land oustees. Most of the Appellants are farmers and have numbers of cattle and all the family members are required to be fit in those tiny quarters which were never meant to be an alternative site. Only six numbers of families were provided Company‟s alternative accommodation at the time of shifting of Panchayat Office and Shiv Temple. The quarters which were provided by the Respondents in Central Colony are in dilapidated condition and MCL vide letter dated 14.09.2020 has already declared those as ’unsafe’. The House Building Assistance and other R & R benefit including compensations and incentives are yet to be provided by the Respondents for smooth relocation and resettlement of the land oustees. It is stated in the reply affidavit that though a portion of the drainage work has been completed by the Respondents, but the main drain is yet to be completed which is hindered by the non-completion of land filling work and has come to a Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 68 of 135 standstill since 2016 and the development work is hindered due to the said non-completion of the main drainage work. It is further stated in the reply affidavit that the Appellants have been provided with the Summary Report of the Balanda R & R site filling dated 25.05.2023, which shows that only a volume of 20531.88 cubic Meters out of 54013 cubic meters has been filled till that date. The Project Engineer in his letter dated 27.07.2023 addressed to the contractor responsible for the earth filling at R & R site has admitted that only 31% work has been completed. The Appellants being aggrieved by the inaction of the Respondents have made a representation dated 21.07.2023 where the Appellants requested the General Manager, Jagannath Area to complete the earth filling work which shall ultimately assist in the execution of other works like demarcation of plots, construction of roads, completion of drainage work, supply of electricity and drinking water in the area. The Respondents have not carried out any developmental work since the month of March. The construction of roads, completion of the provision of electricity connections, and completion of main drain work is also being hindered by the non- completion of filling of the low line area and the encroachment of NLS School. The stand taken by the Respondents is that by Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 69 of 135 virtue of the MOU with RWSS, the pipeline laying work i.e. 5219.00 mtrs. is complete and 80% construction work of underground reservoir and 50% of overhead tank has been completed. In fact, the construction of the same is not being conducted as per the Scope of Work & Technical Specification of the work order and the quality of material used in the ESR, UGR, OHR, Compound Wall and Pump House are below standard. When the contractor was directed to work in accordance with the plan, he stopped the work and since the month of March, there is no progress in the said work. The Appellants have also informed the Executive Engineer, Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Department, Angul describing the irregularity in the construction process through a letter dated 21.07.2023. It is stated in the affidavit that the stand taken by the Respondents is that the electrification work was outsourced to Tata Power and when the same work could not be done due to hindrance from the villagers of Hensamul, the TPCODL had sent an email dated 06.05.2023 describing the cause of non- completion of the electrification work wherein it was stated that the same was due to non-clearance of the site. In fact, the stand taken by the Respondents are misleading as the hindrance caused is not by the Appellants but due to the encroachment of Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 70 of 135 NLS School which is situated in between the approved plan for electrification. It is stated in the affidavit that there was no hindrance by the villagers in the Balanda R & R site and the incident described in the said letters are prior to the Meeting dated 08.06.2023 and nowhere there is mention about any hindrance in the Minutes of Meeting where the Respondents were directed to take steps to complete the work in order to provide the basic amenities to the Appellants and other land oustees. The villagers have never restrained the officials of Respondents and they are not creating any hindrance in the development works but the development work has been stopped since the month of March. Being aggrieved by the actions of the Respondents, the Appellants have also made a representation dated 21.07.2023 to the Collector, Angul praying for the implementation of the decisions taken in the meeting held on 08.06.2023. Pursuant to the letter of the Appellants, the letters dated 27.07.2023 were issued which indicate that the Respondents have not taken any steps and the stand taken by the Respondents that the Appellants have already been given all the basic amenities is incorrect and were made only to cloud the judgment of this Court. Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 71 of 135 It is further stated in the reply affidavit that there are 62 cases pending approval with the Respondents in respect of employment and the same was also noticed in the meeting dated 08.06.2023 where the Collector has directed the Respondents to mitigate the grievances of all such people. All the 143 PDFs have been cooperating with the Officials of the Respondents and they have already vacated a large area for mining activities. The Appellants are always been eager to shift to the Balanda R & R site, but due to lack of basic amenities, they are not able to shift to the said site. The stand taken by the Respondents that the lands shall be leased out in accordance with the Ministry of Coal guideline dated 22.04.2022. In fact, the said law is not applicable in the present case and the Appellants are entitled under the R & R Policy, 2006. It is stated in the affidavit that the Appellant No.80 renting out the house at R & R site is incorrect. The stand taken by the Respondents is that a club house was constructed in the year 2016 with all the basic facilities, in fact, the said club house is in a dilapidated condition beyond repair and the execution of electricity work has been hindered due to non-clearance of encroachment by NLS School. Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 72 of 135 Appointment of Advocate Commissioner: 13. The Appellants filed an interim application i.e. I.A. No.4823 of 2023 on 01.08.2023 for appointment of a Commission for local inquiry in respect of status of the land as provided as part of the rehabilitation package. On 22.09.2023, this Court appointed an Advocate as Commissioner for local inquiry to enquire into the following aspects viz., (i) Whether the basic amenities have been extended over the land proposed for the settlement or rehabilitation; (ii) Whether the plots are demarcated by definite boundaries; and (iii) Whether the land has been earmarked for road and other community activities. It was further observed that in such rehabilitation package, the road, electricity and water supply including the drinking water shall have to be provided, before the Appellants are asked to occupy the demarcated plots for construction of their houses or shelters. It transpired that dissatisfaction in respect of the proposed land was on the non-availability of amenities. Till the inquiry is over, this Court requested the counsel for both the parties to fully cooperate with the Advocate Commissioner so that he could prepare the inquiry report within a short time-frame and place it before this Court. This Court also requested the Commissioner to Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 73 of 135 make his observations regarding the position of the village vis-a- vis the mining operation that was carried out by MCL. This Court also requested Advocate Commissioner to approach the Collector, Angul for providing him a technical person to aid and assist him at the time of his field inquiry and the Collector, Angul was directed to depute a technical person, if requested by the Commissioner. Report of Advocate Commissioner: 14. Pursuant to the order dated 22.09.2023, the Advocate Commissioner filed his report dated 30.10.2023 after local inquiry, the relevant parts are extracted herein below: ‘‘Field Visit: 1. The undersigned visited the village Hensamul and the resettlement site near Balanda College on 14.10.2023 along with officials of MCL, and villagers of Hensamul including the Sarpanch. The Sub-Collector, Angul as well as the District Mining Officer, Angul were also in attendance during the inspection. Copies of the attendance sheets are annexed herewith and marked as Enclosure-1. Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 74 of 135 2. Observations were taken in respect of each of the 154 plots allotted to villagers of Hensamul. Further, the undersigned took several photographs of village Hensamul and the rehabilitation site. Copy of the plan map of the resettlement site is annexed herewith and marked as Enclosure-2. Copies of the photographs of Hensamul village are annexed herewith and marked as Enclosure-3 Series. Copies of the photographs of the resettlement site are annexed herewith and marked as Enclosure-4 Series. Findings & Observations: 01. Electricity: Electric poles have been erected in respect of all plots. However, some electric poles have not been wired and some others having wires are in a state of disrepair. It was stated by the MCL authorities that the repairing and stringing of wires can been completed within a short period of a few days. Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 75 of 135 02. Water Supply: Community water tank is still under construction. No water pipes have been laid down for supply of water to the individual plots. Presently, allottees are availing water from two constructed wells and water tanker services only for the purpose of construction of houses. The water supply is wholly inadequate and makes the entire colony uninhabitable. 03. Sewerage and Drainage: All the plots have been provided with drainage sewers which are connected to a primary drain leading out of the resettlement colony. Three plots have been affected by waste water coming from the neighbouring MCL rescue station. MCL authorities stated that special drains will be made for the said plots. 04. Plot Levelling: Several complaints were received from allottees that the plots are not at the same level as the road and considerable investment had to be made towards levelling and compacting the plots. Although several plots Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 76 of 135 did seem to be at a much lower level than the road, large number of allottees have constructed houses despite the same. 05. Plot Demarcation: Although MCL Authorities stated that plots had been demarcated back in 2014 but no such physical demarcation (except one or two dilapidated pillars) in respect of any of the plots was visible. The plots can be identified only through use of the resettlement colony plan map. It appears that the allottees are well aware of the demarcation since around 60 houses are under different stages of construction. 06. Road Connection: All the plots are connected by way of roads wide enough for vehicles. Only those plots, which have been encroached upon by the Nigamananda Little Star School have no roads connected. 07. Community Centre/Club: The building has been constructed. However, the same is presently in a state of disrepair due to lack of Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 77 of 135 use. Several cracks have also developed along the walls making the building unsafe. 08. School: The old Hensamul Upper Primary + High School has been shifted to an area 5 km. from the Resettlement Colony at the instance of the villagers of Hensamul. Besides, space has been allotted for a school inside the resettlement colony which is yet to be constructed. 09. Clinic/Dispensary: Space has been allotted for a clinic inside the resettlement colony which is yet to be constructed. 10. Police: A police outpost is available outside the entrance to the resettlement colony. 11. Religious Structures: Space has been allotted for a temple inside the resettlement colony which is yet to be constructed. A yajna mandap has also been constructed inside the colony. The old temple of the village has been shifted near the new Hensamul Upper Primary + High School at the instance of the villagers of Hensamul. Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 78 of 135 12. Market Space: Space has been allotted for a market inside the resettlement colony which is yet to be constructed. 13. Park/Green Space: Separate spaces for a playground and a park have been allotted inside the resettlement colony which are yet to be constructed. 14. Panchayat Office: Office of the Gram Panchayat, Hensamul has been constructed next to the new Hensamul Upper Primary + High School, 5 km. from the rehabilitation site, at the instance of the villagers. 15. Anganwadi Centre: Space has been allotted for the centre inside the resettlement colony which is yet to be constructed. 16. Kalyan Mandap: Space has been allotted for a mandap inside the resettlement colony which is yet to be constructed. 17. Village Pond: Already in existence inside the colony. 18. Around 60 houses are in various stages of construction in the resettlement colony but no Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 79 of 135 person is presently in habitation inside the colony. 19. It may be noted that encroachment in the form of the Nigamananda Little Star School covers across 12 plots over which no amenities or roads have been constructed. The issue eviction of Nigamananda Little Star School was pending adjudication before this Hon‟ble Court in W.P.(C) No.8549 of 2019 which has been disposed of vide order dated 09.10.2023. 20. Status of Village Hensamul: The village is flanked on nearly all sides by the Bhubaneswari OCP, Lingaraj OCP, and Ananta OCP. The cliff edge of the mines is at a distance of just 100 meters from the village. Although several persons were seen in the village on 14.10.2023, the dense undergrowth inside the village as well as the state of disrepair of the buildings indicates that most of the village is in a state of abandonment. Further, black coal dust blankets and pollutes the area in and around the Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 80 of 135 village. It is imperative that the village may be vacated at the earliest. Conclusions: 01. Whether the basic amenities have been extended over the land proposed for resettlement or rehabilitation? The reference may be answered in the negative due to the complete inadequacy in supply of water, and the electricity infrastructure being in a state of disrepair. 02. Whether the plots are demarcated by definite boundaries? Although no physical demarcation is visible on the ground, demarcation can be made using the site map. Around 60 allottees have constructed houses on that basis. 03. Whether the land has been earmarked for road and other community activities? The reference may be answered in the positive. All plots, except the plots encroached upon by the Nigamananda Little Star School are connected by way of roads. Space has been Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 81 of 135 allowed for several community buildings which are yet to be constructed. 04. Observations regarding the position of the village vis-(cid:224)-vis mining operations carried out by MCL. In light of the pollution, physical state of the village, and the vicinity of mining operations, it is imperative that the village may be vacated at the earliest.‟‟ 15. Pursuant to the aforesaid report dated 30.10.2023 of the Advocate Commissioner, the Appellants filed an affidavit on 06.12.2023, wherein it is stated that some of the facts require clarifications and some relevant facts are required to be brought on record for the purposes of facilitating this Court in effectively and completely adjudicating the dispute between the parties which are as follows: ‟‟(i) In reply to para 1 of the ’Findings and Observations’ in the aforesaid report dated 30.10.2023, it is stated that though electricity polls have been erected as stated by the learned Advocate Commissioner, the wiring and electricity connections are not provided and the Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 82 of 135 erection of electricity polls near most of the plots have been done recently pursuant to the appointment of the learned Advocate Commissioner vide order dated 22.09.2023 by this Court, but the work relating to the same is far from over and the same is a major impediment in the process of resettlement that remains unaddressed by MCL; (ii) In reply to para 3 of the „Findings and Observations’ in the aforesaid report dated 30.10.2023, it is stated that in respect of sewerage and drainage, the primary drain has to be completed for the drainage of wastewater from the R & R site, but due to the encroachment of NLS School, the said work has come to a halt; (iii) In reply to paras 4 and 5 of the „Findings and Observations’ in the aforesaid report dated 30.10.2023, it is stated that some land oustees, who are financially sound, have started construction on some of the plots by taking personal loans from the Banks with higher Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 83 of 135 interest rates. The constructions on some of the plots have been done over uneven land. However, only 31% of Earth filling work has been done as per the records of MCL which was submitted before this Court in the previous affidavits and which is also confirmed by the learned Advocate Commissioner in his report. It is further stated that the TAMDA Plan for the resettlement site was approved on 05.12.2015, which has been produced by the learned Advocate Commissioner at Enclosure-2. Some of the Land oustees had started construction over encroachment free portions of the resettlement site in order to minimize the displacement process in good faith, but most of the plots could not be properly demarcated due to encroachment by 250 numbers of encroachers including NLS School. Though most of the encroachments have been eventually cleared, the encroachments by the NLS School, one police garage and one old Anganwadi are yet to be cleared. Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 84 of 135 As per the order of this Court dated 09.10.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No.8549 of 2019, the eviction of NLS School is not possible till the month of April 2024. Therefore, till the said encroachments are cleared, the demarcation of plots along with the provision of basic amenities has come to a halt; (iv) In reply to para 7 of the ’Findings and Observations’ in the aforesaid report dated 30.10.2023, It is stated that the quality of the construction work made by MCL speaks for itself as it is evident from the report of the learned Advocate Commissioner; (v) In reply to para 8 of the ’Findings and Observations’ in the aforesaid report dated 30.10.2023, it is stated that the UP school and Panchayat High school has been shifted to the area where other villagers of Hensamul Panchayat are living. The said school has been functioning for the entire Hensamul Grama Panchayat. The said resettlement of UP School Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 85 of 135 and Panchayat High school are not part of the resettlement of Hensamul village; (vi) In reply to para 11 of the ’Findings and Observations’ in the aforesaid report dated 30.10.2023, it is stated that the Yagyan Mandap which is shown in the report of the learned Advocate Commissioner has been constructed by the villagers on a temporary basis for Bhumi Pujan Utsav by utilizing their own funds. The Old Siva Temple which has been shifted near the Hensamul Panchayat High School was the worship place of whole Hensamul Panchayat; (vii) In reply to para 14 of the ’Findings and Observations’ in the aforesaid report dated 30.10.2023, it is stated that shifting of the Panchayat Office was a conscious decision of the State Government and the role of MCL Authorities in the said process is none; (viii) In reply to para 17 of the ’Findings and Observations’ in the aforesaid report dated 30.10.2023, it is stated that though the learned Advocate Commissioner has noted that there is Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 86 of 135 a village pond inside the colony, but there is no pond inside the colony and the waste water clogged inside the colony is due to non- completion of main drain work. The water has been clogged in the low line areas and necessary steps are required to be taken to fill those clogged areas with good earth before allotment of plots; (ix) In reply to paras 19 and 20 of the ’Findings and Observations" in the aforesaid report dated 30.10.2023, it is stated that during the pendency of the case, the villagers including the Appellants have always cooperated to the MCL management without any hindrance for the coal production with a hope for early settlement of rehabilitation and resettlement issues of the village. As a result, the project is achieving its annual target each financial year. It is stated in the affidavit that learned Advocate Commissioner after visiting the village and after considering the aspects like pollution, physical state of the village and vicinity of the mining operations, opined that the village might be vacated Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 87 of 135 at the earliest. In fact, the Appellants, though are eager to vacate the village as soon as possible, are not able to shift to the resettlement site as the resettlement site lacks basic amenities like water, electricity etc. It is the mandate of law that no physical displacement shall be made before the completion of resettlement work approved by the RPDAC and the complete physical displacement could be done only after issuance of completion certificate by the Collector as per Para 7 clause (ii) of the Odisha R & R Policy, 2006. Highlights of reply affidavit filed by Respondents to the Advocate Commissioner’s report: 16. Pursuant to the aforesaid report dated 30.10.2023 submitted by the Advocate Commissioner, the Respondents filed an affidavit on 17.06.2025, wherein it is stated that in pursuance to the order dt.22.09.2023, the learned Advocate Commissioner visited village Hensamul (Talasahi) and resettlement site near Balanda College on 14.10.2023 along with villagers of Hensamul (Talasahi) including the Sarpanch, Government officials and officials of MCL and given certain observations: Observations: i. With regard to the observation made by learned Advocate Commissioner, it is stated that Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 88 of 135 some electric poles could not have been wired due to hindrance in the site. Moreover, on thirteen plots, which was encroached by Nigamananda Little Star School, electric poles and wires have not been erected. In pursuant to the direction of this Court dt.06.12.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No.9912 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No.9921 of 2024, MCL has evicted and demolished the encroached area NLS school on 24.12.2024 and after eviction, MCL authorities has issued the letters dt.07.01.2025 and 26.05.2025 to the allottees to take over the possessions of thirteen plots, but they are not showing interest to take possession of the said thirteen plots. So far as erection of electric poles and cable wires in the rest part of the land including said 13 plots is concerned, the MCL authorities along with authorities of Tata Power visited the spot on 12.06.2025 and demarcated the spot where the electric poles have to be erected and as discussed with Tata Power, all the pending works related to erection of the electric poles and cable wires for all the plots would be erected within one month. It is Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 89 of 135 stated that no cable wires are in a state of disrepair as the cables used for wiring are of Aerial Bunch (AB) cable, which are to be strengthened during completion of the rest part; ii. The observation of learned Advocate Commissioner regarding water supply to the R & R plots, it is stated that the overhead tank has already been constructed and the same is functional. The Superintending Engineer, RWS & S Division, Angul at Talcher, vide its letter dt.10.06.2025 has informed to the General Manager, Bhubaneswari Area stating therein that rural piped water supply to R & R site for village Hensamul (Talasahi), At-Koilanagar in front of Balanda College has been completed and at the stage of commissioning with the following details: a. 2.0 lakh ltr. capacity 15 mtr staging ESR - completed. b. 3.0 lakh ltr. capacity UGR - completed. c. Pump House - completed. d. Staff Quarter - completed. e. Compound Wall - completed. f. Rising Main - completed. Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 90 of 135 g. Distribution system - completed. h. External Electrification with 25 KVA transformer & internal Electrification - completed. The main water pipelines have already been laid over the R & R site, the supply of water to the individual plots/house could be provided through Functional Household Tap Connection (FHTC) after submission of necessary documents along with applications by the Appellants to the office of RWS & S Division, Angul, Talcher; iii. The observation of learned Advocate Commissioner regarding sewerage & drainage to the R & R plots, it is stated that special drain has already been constructed for taking out the waste water coming from the neighbouring MCL rescue station of the three plots; iv. The observation of learned Advocate Commissioner regarding plot levelling of the R & R plots, it is stated that all the R & R plots have been levelled to the road level including thirteen plots which were encroached by NLS; Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 91 of 135 v. The observation of learned Advocate Commissioner regarding plot demarcation of the R & R plots, it is stated that there is no dispute regarding demarcation of plots between the allottees and MCL since several allottees (i.e. 60 nos.) have already constructed their houses in the R & R site; After eviction of NLS school, the MCL authorities have demarcated thirteen plots by putting cement pillars. Letters dt.07.01.2025 and 26.05.2025 have been issued to the respective thirteen allottees to take over the possession of their allotted plots, but till date, they are not showing interest to take over the possession of the said plots; vi. The observation of learned Advocate Commissioner with regard to road connection of the R & R plots, it is stated that concrete road connecting to the individual plots have been completed except the thirteen plots which was encroached by NLS School. It is stated in the affidavit that so far as other development with regard to construction of balance concrete road, Community Centre/Club. Primary Health Centre, Temple Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 92 of 135 (i.e., Maa Mangala and Maa Hingula Temple), Market Place, Anganwadi Centre, Dolo Mandap, remaining main drain 90 m & box culvert, Kothaghara are concerned, a tender has been floated on 22.01.2025 and the said tender is with regard to ancillary developments on the resettlement site and the construction of the same would be completed by the time houses are constructed by the Appellants over the R & R site. It is further stated in the affidavit that all the Appellants have been provided all the R & R benefits including employment benefits. They have been allotted resettlement plots at Balanda resettlement site and for temporary accommodation, these Appellants have been provided company quarters/their own accommodations, which has been given in details in affidavit dated 12.01.2023 and they are also staying in these quarters along with their families. They are deliberately not shifting to the R & R site although the Appellants are serving in MCL since last twelve years and so also staying in MCL quarters or self- accommodation since last twelve years. It is further stated in the affidavit that the learned Advocate Commissioner has rightly observed that the village Hensamul (Talasahi) is flanked on nearly all the sides by the Bhubaneswari OCP, Lingaraj OCP and Ananta OCP and the cliff Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 93 of 135 edge of the mines is at a distance of just 100 Meters from the village. From the paragraph 20 of the said report dt.30.10.2023, it clearly reveals that villagers are not staying in the village Hensamul (Talasahi) and all the villagers are staying in the temporary accommodation provided by MCL or self- accommodation. Some of the appellants i.e. more than 60 in numbers have also constructed houses at the R & R site and the Hensamul (Talasahi) is at the edge of mines and at any moment, mining accident/untoward situation might happen if complete village is not evacuated. The Respondents have issued notice dated 12.06.2025 to many of the Appellants for acceptance of Ex- gratia of Rs.5 Lakhs approved in favour of their children, who were minor on the cut-off date of the acquisition of the land for R & R benefits and also to vacate the premises by handing over the possession of the vacated land to MCL and the Ex-gratia benefit is beyond the R & R Policy 2006. 17. Pursuant to the notice dated 12.06.2025 issued by the Respondents, the Appellants filed an interim application i.e. I.A. No.2939 of 2025 with a prayer to restrain the Respondents, MCL Authorities from evicting the Appellants from their respective residential houses at village Hensamul (Talasahi) with Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 94 of 135 a further prayer to restrain them from taking any coercive action against the Appellants till disposal of the writ appeal. In the aforesaid interim application, the Respondents intended to file objection and accordingly, this Court vide order dated 19.06.2025 passed an order of status quo in respect of the dwelling house in question as per Annexure-2 annexed in the said interim application be maintained till the next date and the status quo order was extended from time to time. 18. The Respondents filed reply to I.A. No.2913 of 2025 and I.A. No.2939 of 2025 filed by the Appellants, wherein it is stated that the Appellants filed W.P.(C) No.21006 of 2014 with the following prayers: “(a) why the letter dated 31.07.2014 vide Annexure-12 to the extent challenged in the writ application, shall not be quashed; (b) why the Opp. parties shall not be directed to reinstate the services of the Petitioners without attachment and imposition of any conditions and in accordance with letter dated 09.07.2014 of the Sub- Collector, issued in terms with the decisions taken in the meeting dated 06.07.2014; Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 95 of 135 (c) why the Opp. parties shall not be directed to not to take any coercive action against the Petitioners till they are allotted plots physically in the resettlement site.” It is further stated that so far as prayers in the W.P(C) No.21006 of 2014 at Sl. No.(a) and (b) are concerned, the same relate to the letter dated 31.07.2014 and the condition stipulated under the said letter are beneficial to the Appellants and were agreed upon by the Appellants as has been noted by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment. It is further stated that in respect of prayer at Sl. No.(b), the Appellants have contended that the Respondents be directed to reinstate the services of the Appellants without attachment and imposition of any condition in accordance with letter dt.09.07.2014 of the Sub-Collector, in terms of the decision taken in the meeting dt.06.07.2014. In that regard, it is stated that all the Appellants have been reinstated and consequential benefits have been given to them as stated in letter dt.31.07.2014. The aforesaid letter dated 31.07.2014 contained five stipulations, which reads as follows: Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 96 of 135 “i) Re-instatement of all the terminated employees without break in service and with immediate effect; ii) The villagers will not have to submit affidavit for the same; iii) MCL has already agreed for allotment of R & R site situated in front of Balanda college as has been decided in the PLRRC meeting on 19.07.2014. MCL will allot plots to villagers at R & R site in front of Balanda College duly decided by PLRRC after obtaining clearance from the Govt. of India and diversion of forest, if required. MCL management has already initiated action before the appropriate authority for allotment of plots; iv) The villagers who are not having company‟s accommodation will be allotted company‟s quarters on priority basis and in minimum possible time as decided in the Sub- Collector‟s meeting on 06.07.2014; Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 97 of 135 v) MCL has also agreed to adjust the period of absence due to termination from service with payment of leave in credit of the individual.” So far as stipulation at Sl. No. (i) of the aforesaid letter dated 31.07.2014 relating to reinstatement of all the terminated employees without break in service and with immediate effect is concerned, the same has been duly implemented. So far as stipulation at Sl. No. (ii) is concerned, i.e., the villagers would not have to submit affidavit for the same, has not been insisted upon. So far as Sl. No. (iii) is concerned, all the Appellants except Sl. Nos.29 and 34, namely, Pratima Sahoo and Dasarathi Sahoo have been allotted plots. So far as Sl. No. (iv) is concerned, it is stated that for 97 Appellants, in addition to the allocation of the plots, MCL quarter accommodation has been provided. So far as Sl. No. (v) is concerned, it is stated that MCL has also agreed to adjust the period of absence due to termination from service with payment of leave in credit of the individual and the same also has also been given effect to. It is further stated that the land in question has already been acquired and stands vested with MCL and any Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 98 of 135 unauthorised occupancy and use would seriously prejudice and hamper the interest of the State and the economy as a whole. It is further stated that out of 377 Project Displaced Families (PDFs), 223 PDFs have opted for cash compensation of Rs.6,32,000.00 paisa in lieu of Resettlement Plots and have voluntarily vacated their lands, both agricultural and dwelling house and given physical possession of the same to MCL and the rest 154 PDFs have been allotted with the resettlement plots. All the Appellants have been allotted the resettlement plots and only Appellant no.34 has taken cash compensation of Rs.6,32,000.00 paisa in lieu of plot and Appellant no.29 is not eligible for resettlement of plot. It is further stated that the W.P.(C) No.21006 of 2014 was filed basically being aggrieved by the timeline stipulated in the letter dated 31.07.2014, wherein the Appellants were required to vacate the properties/land before 31.10.2024. It is further stated that during the pendency of the writ appeal, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed vide order dated 22.09.2023 and was asked to submit a report on the terms of reference. In pursuance to the aforesaid order dt.22.09.2023, the learned Advocate Commissioner visited village Hensamul (Talasahi) and resettlement site near Balanda Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 99 of 135 College on 14.10.2023 along with villagers of Hensamul (Talasahi) including the Sarpanch, Government officials and officials of MCL and filed his report giving certain observations. It is stated in the reply that the interim applications have been filed with artificial and expanded prayer to the effect that minor children of some of the Appellants who have now attained majority and hence entitled to employment and till such time as the said appointment is given, there could be no eviction and that providing employment to children of the Appellants, is beyond the scope of the Writ Appeal. The Additional Secretary to Govt. of Odisha, Revenue and Disaster Management Department vide letter No.RDM-RRC- CLRFIC-0002/2018-34288/R&DM dt.05.11.2019, issued a clarification on the decision taken in the 10th RPDAC meeting in respect of MCL projects of Angul District held on 15.05.2018. In the said clarification letter dt.05.11.2019 at Sl. No.4 has clarified regarding “Fixation of Cut-off date for providing R & R benefits to the eligible PAFs in accordance with the amendment made by the Govt. in Revenue and Disaster Management Department”. The Law Department has observed that the ORRP, 2006 came into effect from 14.05.2006 i.e., the date of its Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 100 of 135 publication in the gazette. In the said clarification, it has been stated that- “ xxx xxx xxx In this connection, Law department has further observed that the purpose of declaring eligibility of R & R benefits, Para 2(c) of the ORRP, 2006 that determines the cut-off date has undergone amendment vide resolution dt.15.12.2017. This resolution has a prospective effect. Time and again, the matter relating to the R & R benefits was placed before the RPDAC which has issued guidelines to the project proponent regarding expeditious grant of the benefits. Earlier, it had fixed the date of passing of the award as the cut-off date for R & R benefits. It appears that pursuant to these guidelines, the project proponent (here MCL Authority) has given employment to the affected and displaced families. Now, the question arises as to whether the minor of the family which availed R & R benefits, on becoming major after the cut-off date is entitled for the R & R benefit in respect of the same project. The answer is certainly “No” in as much as the family of Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 101 of 135 the minor having availed the benefits under the policy, on attaining majority cannot constitute a “separate family” within the meaning of the ORRP especially when the lands for the purpose of the benefits having already been acquired is no longer available for consideration of R & R benefits.” It is stated in reply that in view of the above clarification issued by the Govt. of Odisha, the present claim of the Apellants to give employment to their children, who were minor on the cut-off date i.e., 25.03.2007 and has attained majority as on 01.01.2024, could not be entertained and the said claim/prayer of the Appellants is liable to be rejected. It is further stated that the cut-off for extending the benefit of employment is 25.03.2007. Family members of the Appellants, who were eligible as on the said date have been provided with employment. In addition the above benefits, an ex-gratia amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (rupees five lakh only) has been offered to many of the Appellants and their claimants vide notice dt.12.06.2025 for acceptance of Ex-gratia of rupees five lakhs approved in favour of their children, who were minor on the cut-off date of the acquisition of the land for R & R benefits and also to vacate the premises by handing over the possession Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 102 of 135 of the vacated land to MCL and the Ex-gratia benefit is beyond the R & R Policy 2006. With regard to issuance of the compliance certificate by the concerned Collector of the District as per Clause-7(ii) of the Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy, 2006, it is stated that the Collector, Angul had sent a letter dated 10.06.2025 to GM, Bhubaneswari Area regarding submission of present status report on completion of Balanda R & R site for resettlement of 154 PDFs from Hensamul (Talasahi) Basti and the GM, Bhubaneswari Area has informed the Collector, Angul vide letter dated 19.06.2025 about the status report on resettlement of 377 PDFs from Hensamul (Talasahi), wherein it is indicated that out of 377 PDFs, 223 PDFs have opted for cash compensation in lieu of resettlement plot and the balance 154 PDFs have been allotted plots @ Ac.0.10 decimals of land to each PDF at R & R site, Balanda, as per their own demand. With regard to MCL extending house building assistance of Rs.14,50,000/- and Rs.25,00,000/- to those displaced families, who have opted for self-relocation is misconceived and it is stated that the same has no application to the present case. Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 103 of 135 In pursuance of the order dated 19.07.2010 passed in SLP (C) No.6933 of 2007 by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, the Claims Commission constituted for determination of compensation and R & R benefits for the 14 villages only i.e. Sardega, Gopalpur, Jhupurunga, Ratnansara, Tikilpara, Bankibahal, Balinga, Kulda, Siarmal, Tumulia, Garjanbahal, Bangurkela, Karlikachhar, Kiripsira and Laima (RF) in the district of Sundargarh, Odisha. In the aforesaid villages, cut-off i.e. September, 2010 has been fixed by the Hon‟ble Claims Commission which has been approved by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court for determination of the benefits. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court vide its judgment dated 03.11.2022 has observed that as far as the land owners, who cannot secure a plot, are concerned, a lump sum compensation to the extent of Rs.25 lakhs should be paid to them. It clearly reveals that all the land owners in the 26 villages are not entitled to Rs.25 lakhs. So far as Rs.14.50 lakhs are concerned, the Hon‟ble Claims Commission enhanced the house building assistance and the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has observed the same in its judgment and no specific direction has been given to that extent in the conclusion part of the Judgment. The aforesaid 14 villages are special case under the supervision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court and judgment has been passed by Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 104 of 135 the Hon‟ble Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. It is stated that in view of the above, the Appellants are not entitled to the benefits as per the village Gopalpur. So far as non-receipt of any House Buildings Assistance from MCL, it is stated that the House Buildings Assistance to the tune of Rs.2,78,000.00 as per R & R Policy, 2006 has been sanctioned to all the PDFs and the same would be disbursed, if the PDFs wants to avail the benefits with prior application before shifting from their dwelling houses at Hensamul (Talasahi). With regard to existence of Govt. structures over plot nos.99 and 100 at Balanda R & R Site, it is stated in the reply that on the request of the villagers, the said Govt. structures had not been demolished during demolition of 164 structures encroached at the site in the year 2018 as the structure is an Anganwadi Kendra and they requested that the Anganwadi Kendra would be used for the benefits for the children of Hensamul (Talasahi). If the village committee wants to demolish the same, then after consultation with the District Administration, the aforesaid structure would be demolished and to allot the same to the allottees of Plot Nos.99 and 100 and if the Appellants did not want to demolish the said Anganwadi Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 105 of 135 Kendra, then two plots @ Ac.0.10 Dec. each could be allotted within the resettlement site. With regard to safety of the villagers, it is stated that the Commission has already submitted its report stating that the village is flanked on nearly all sides by the Bhubaneswari OCP, Lingaraj OCP and Ananta OCP and the cliff age of the mines is at a distance of just 100 meters from the village. From the report of the Commission, it is being confirmed that the village should also be vacated from safety point of view. 19. On 25.07.2025, in the midst of hearing, a proposal was floated by the learned Advocate General that the matter could possibly be sorted out by way of amicable settlement between the parties. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned to facilitate the parties to explore the same. It seems that a lengthy grievances/demands styled as “Terms of Settlement” was placed by the Appellants on 08.08.2025 before the Respondents. The Respondents filed objection dated 02.09.2025 to the proposed terms of settlement dated 08.08.2025 submitted by the Appellants, wherein it is stated that purely on compassionate ground, the Respondents have addressed each and every demand of the Appellants. The Appellants have Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 106 of 135 availed all the benefits under the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Package and most of the land losers have vacated dwelling houses in the villages under acquisition following the due process of law under the CBA Act, 1957. All the statutory benefits/compensation including the benefits under Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme have been fully granted to the land losers and that nothing remained to be paid to anyone of them. It is further stated in the objection that the compensation towards the land and the structures have been paid to the Appellants and the building assistance has been sanctioned for the Appellants towards shifting and construction of houses. The area/resettlement site has been developed with water supply and electricity connection along with other essential amenities. It is further stated in the objection that on 13.08.2025, the learned Collector & District Magistrate, Angul has issued Certificate of Completion of the Resettlement and Rehabilitation (R & R) of the Project Displaced Families of village Hensamul (Talasahi) under the provisions of para 7 (ii) of the Odisha Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy, 2006. It is further stated in the objection that 377 persons were displaced because of the acquisition and the compensation Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 107 of 135 has been paid since 2007 after passing of the award. Despite availing all the benefits under law, the Appellants still litigate with intention of obstructing the industrial activity, which is detrimental to the growth of national economy. It is further stated in the objection that taking a compassionate view of the matter, though the Respondents had expressed willingness to amicable settlement of the dispute and a proposal was mooted but a lengthy grievance styled as “Terms of Settlement” has been filed by the Appellants on 08.08.2025. The unreasonable bargain of the Appellants is neither sanctioned by law nor coming under the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme. It is further stated in the objection that the writ appeal is camouflaged to build pressure on a leading public sector undertaking of the Country and to deter the development of the area. Coal being a major raw material for production of energy, the conduct and action of the Appellants need to be reprimanded in the highest terms and pursuing a frivolous litigation for last ten years despite availing all benefits is nothing but an attempt to abuse the process of law and therefore, while opposing the writ appeal in its entirety, the Respondents are not Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 108 of 135 in a position to accede to the so-called proposal for settlement and therefore, the Writ Appeal should be dismissed. Final Hearing dated 04.09.2025: 20. The matter was listed on 04.09.2025 and heard in presence of Mr. S.P. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate along with Mr. Soumya Mishra and Ms. Sakshi Rout, learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the Appellants and Mr. K.M. Nataraj, learned A.S.G.I., Mr. Pitambar Acharya, learned Advocate General along with Mr. Rakesh Sharma, Mr. Soumyajit Pani and Mr. Debaraj Mohanty, learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the Respondents. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Dey, Chief Manager (Mining)/Staff Officer (L & R), Bhubaneswar Area, MCL and Mr. Abdaal M. Akhtar, the Collector, Angul were also present in person on that day. Mr. S.P. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Appellants filed an affidavit dated 04.09.2025 by way of an objection to the affidavit dated 02.09.2025 filed by the Respondents wherein it is stated that all the demands as raised by the Appellants are well within the parameters laid down in the R & R Policy, 2006 and para 8 (ii) of the R & R Policy, 2006 which states that no physical displacement shall be made before Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 109 of 135 completion of resettlement work as approved by RPDAC. The certificate of completion of resettlement work would be issued by the Collector. It is further stated in the affidavit that in the letter dated 10.06.2025, the Collector & District Magistrate, Angul sought for an update from the General Manager, MCL, Bhubaneswari Area, Talcher regarding the status report on completion of Balanda R & R site for resettlement of 154 PDFs from Hensamul (Talasahi). In reply, the GM, MCL wrote a vaguely worded letter dated 19.06.2025 stating, inter alia, that no valid R & R demand is pending with the land acquisition authority. Surprisingly, in the objection affidavit filed by MCL on 02.09.2025, a letter dated 13.08.2025 appears to have been written by the Collector & District Magistrate, Angul addressed to the GM, MCL, Bhubaneswari Area, Talcher wherein, a Certificate of Completion of the Resettlement and Rehabilitation (R & R) of the PDFs of village Hensamul (Talasahi) is stated to have been issued. It is further stated in the affidavit that it is not known as to under what circumstances, the said Certificate is stated to have been issued when the resettlement site is bereft of basic necessities like water and electricity supply to the plots allotted Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 110 of 135 in favour of the Appellants and other PDFs of village Hensamul (Talasahi). It is further stated in the affidavit that having regard to the fact that the Certificate of Completion of the Resettlement work as mentioned under Para 7 (ii) of the R & R Policy relates to the development of amenities/facilities at the resettlement site, as mentioned under the provisions of the Third Schedule of the Act, 2013, the Collector & District Magistrate, Angul could under no circumstances whatsoever have issued the so-called Certificate of Completion when there is absolutely nothing on record to portray that the resettlement site has been developed in terms of the facilities/amenities as provided under the provisions of the Third Schedule of the Act, 2013, therefore, the said letter dated 13.08.2025 is an act of conspicuous mala fides and amounts to playing fraud on this Court. It is further stated that the Certificate of Completion is an outcome of patent mala fides and illegality, which has been created/manufactured by the Collector & District Magistrate, Angul in order to subterfuge the core issue involved in the captioned Appeal i.e. non-completion of work qua development of amenities/facilities at the resettlement site. Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 111 of 135 So far as non-allotment of company quarters to 25 numbers of PDFs among the Appellants as transit accommodation is concerned, it is stated in the affidavit that out of 102 Appellants (PDFs), 25 Appellants (PDFs) have not been provided with company quarters as transit accommodation prior to being directed to vacate their lands in the acquired area i.e. Hensamul (Talasahi). So far as House Building Assistance and Incentive in lieu of displacement is concerned, it is further stated in the affidavit that in terms of Para 7 (II)(f) of the R & R policy 2006, each of the PDFs in the resettlement habitat shall be provided an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand only) towards House Building Assistance. This is notwithstanding as to whether such displaced family is settling in the resettlement habitat or opting for self-relocation elsewhere. By virtue of the 9th Biennial revision of Rehabilitation Grants in Monetary Terms that came into operation vide Resolution dated 18.11.2024 of the Revenue and Disaster Management Department of Government of Odisha, the House Building Assistance has been enhanced to Rs.3,39,383/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Thirty Nine Thousand Three Hundred and Eighty Three only). Having regard to the Maintenance Allowance for one Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 112 of 135 year @ Rs.4,525/- per month, Assistance of temporary shed @ Rs.22,626/- and Transport Allowance @ Rs.4,525/-, the total Assistance comes to the tune of Rs.4,20,834/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Twenty Thousand Eight Hundred and Thirty Four only). So far as the incentive offered by MCL is concerned, it was decided in the 12th RPDAC Meeting dated 31.08.2021 that an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (rupees five lakh only) would be paid to each of the PDFs along with other resettlement benefits on submission of an affidavit by the PDFs for shifting within six months from the date of receipt of the said amount and the balance of Rs.5,00,000/- (rupees five lakh only) be disbursed by MCL in favour of the PDFs after complete shifting of the village. It is further stated in the affidavit that in the 13th RPDAC meeting held on 15.02.2024, the earlier decision taken in the 12th RPDAC meeting held on 31.08.2021 was modified to the extent that as opposed to an incentive to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- (rupees five lakh only) being disbursed by MCL on signing of a tripartite agreement with the PDFs and the remaining to be disbursed to each of the PDFs upon shifting of the entire village at one go, it was decided that pursuant to an initial incentive of Rs.5,00,000/- (rupees five lakh only) having been disbursed by MCL after execution of the tripartite Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 113 of 135 agreement, the remaining Rs.5,00,000/- (rupees five lakh only) was to be disbursed to the PDFs, who demolish their house in the acquired area and shift from the village, irrespective of whether or not the entire village shifts from the said acquired area. Having regard to the decision taken in the 12th and 13th RPDAC meetings held on 31.08.2021 and 15.02.2024 respectively, MCL has offered incentive @ Rs.10,00,000/- to PDFs in village Hiloi, which is apparent from a letter written by MCL to one Satyaban Pradhan of the said village, calling him upon to receive the said incentive along with other resettlement benefits by demolishing the dwelling house and handing over physical possession to MCL, particularly, the decision taken during the said RPDAC meetings have also been mentioned in the said letter, which depicts and demonstrates the fact that MCL has implemented the decision taken in the said meetings. It is further stated in the affidavit that MCL in the village of Gopalpur has extended benefits qua House Building Assistance together with incentives to the tune of Rs.14,50,000/- as well as lands measuring an area of Ac.0.10 decimals to PDFs of the said village and an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- have been provided to those PDFs, who have opted for self-relocation, but Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 114 of 135 the Appellants in the present writ appeal are yet to receive their House Building Assistance as well as the incentive as decided in the RPDAC meetings. It is further stated in the affidavit that MCL has resorted to an allegation during the pendency of the Writ Appeal regarding the impediments in the mining operations caused by the non-cooperation of the Appellants (PDFs) in moving out of the acquired area, which is claimed to have caused them colossal losses. A bare reading of the financial highlights over the past ten years would depict that MCL has overachieved its target of production, dispatch and sale of coal and as a matter of fact, MCL has achieved more than 100% than what it ought to have achieved as per their target. MCL has also achieved a Year-on- Year growth of about 10% in 2024-25 compared to the last year. In the affidavit, reliance was placed on the judgment in the case of Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. & Anr. -Vrs.- Mathias Oram & Ors. reported in A.I.R. 2022 S.C. 5723, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that since the Orissa Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy does not indicate specific provisions with respect of facilities and amenities that are to be developed, therefore, the provisions of the Third Schedule to the R & R Act, 2013 which outlines 25 heads and indicate amenities, have to be Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 115 of 135 fulfilled by the project proponent as part of the resettlement work which reads as follows: "63. The Orissa Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy does not indicate specific provisions with respect to facilities and amenities that are to be developed. Consequently, the provisions of the Third Schedule to the R & R Act, 2013 which outlines 25 heads and indicate amenities such as roads in the villages, appropriate drainage, provision for safe drinking water for each family, provision for drinking water for cattle, grazing land, reasonable number of fair price shops, community or panchayat ghars; village level post offices, seed-cum-fertilizer storage facilities, provision for basic irrigation facilities, transportation to the newly resided areas, burial or cremation grounds, facilities for sanitation, including individual toilet points, individual single electricity connections, anganwadi, providing child nutritional services, school, sub- health centres within two kilometer range, Primary Health Centres in terms of the Central Government norms, play grounds for children, one community centre for every 100 families, places of worship, separate land for traditional tribal institutions, etc. In addition, forest dweller families must be provided with their forest on non-timber produce close to the new places of resettlement. Furthermore, appropriate security Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 116 of 135 arrangements are to be provided and service centre in accordance with the prescribed norms also has to be provided. 64. In the present case, the materials on record show that those resettlement sites have been earmarked and are at different stages of development. The mandate of the law i.e., the Third Schedule to the R & R Act, 2013 is very clear in that all the amenities to the extent they conform to the population in each of the resettlement areas have to be provided. In these circumstances, there may be no escaping these obligations. The State Government, through its appropriate agencies should draw up a comprehensive plan for creation of such amenities and ensure that they are functional so as to complete rehabilitation and resettlement in a meaningful manner." Relevantly in the said affidavit, in Paragraph 10, the Appellants precisely stated the terms of settlement/demands raised by them which are as follows: “10. That, the deponent seeks leave of this Hon‟ble Court to place on record the following facts/clarification in respect of the Terms of Settlement for better appreciation of this Hon‟ble Court: Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 117 of 135 (a) That, the Appellants humbly state and submit that the following demands as raised by the Appellants are required to be brought to the knowledge of this Hon‟ble Court: (i) Expeditious and timely completion of work at the Resettlement Site as per the approved plan, preferably within a period of six months; (ii) To provide company quarters as Transit Accommodation for 27 Nos. of Appellants within a period of one month, and subsequent to which, the said Appellants shall vacate their lands in the acquired area within a period of one month hence; (iii) Expeditious disbursement of House Building Assistance @ Rs.3,39,383/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Thirty-Nine Thousand Three Hundred Eighty-Three only) to the Appellants as provided in the 9th Biennial Revision of Rehabilitation Grants in Monetary Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 118 of 135 Terms vide Resolution dated 18.11.2024 of the Revenue and Disaster Management Department of Government of Odisha; (iv) Incentive for early and expeditious displacement of PDFs @ Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) as per the decision taken in the 12th RPDAC Meeting dated 31.08.2021 as well as the 13th RPDAC Meeting dated 15.02.2024.” 21. The Respondents filed an affidavit on 04.09.2025, wherein it is stated that all the land losers have got the land acquisition compensation in terms of the applicable law. Besides, in terms of the policy, the eligible persons have been allotted sites. It is further stated that the resettlement site work is in advanced stage. In response to the precise demands raised in the affidavit filed by the Appellants, the MCL Company acknowledged the demands as mentioned in Paragraph-10(a)(i) and (ii). It is stated that an earnest attempt would be made to meet the demand of the land losers. So far as Paragraph- 10(a)(ii) is concerned, it is stated that out of all the persons in Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 119 of 135 terms of the list enclosed to the affidavit dated 04.09.2025, only 25 are stated to be not granted the alternative accommodation, who would be provided with alternative accommodation within a period of one month subject to their eligibility. The Appellants would be given all the benefits in accordance with law subject to their eligibility in terms of the law as applicable. It is stated in the affidavit dated 04.09.2025 that the writ appeal be disposed of by vacating the interim order to enable the Respondents to proceed with hassle free mining operation in the site in question. Mr. Nataraj, learned A.S.G.I. and Mr. Acharya, learned Advocate General also fairly submitted that in so far as the demand nos.(i) and (ii) are concerned, the same would be accepted as it is and in regard to the other demands of the appellants, the same would be given as per their entitlements of the Appellants in accordance with the R & R Rules, 2006 on the basis of their individual entitlement/eligibility. After the judgment was reserved on 04.09.2025, the matter was subsequently mentioned by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Appellants for listing for certain clarification and accordingly, it was taken up on 10.09.2025. The apprehension expressed by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Appellants is that so far as conditions nos.(i) Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 120 of 135 and (ii) are concerned, the affidavit filed by the Respondents on 04.09.2025 does not expressly mention as to whether those two conditions would be scrupulously complied with or not. Mr. Nataraj, learned ASGI and Mr. Pitamber Acharya, learned Advocate General appearing for the Respondents submitted that there is no quarrel or confusion in so far as condition nos.(i) and (ii) are concerned. The affidavit may not be happily worded, but the Respondents shall stick to the undertaking given regarding the compliance of condition nos. (i) and (ii). The Respondents shall comply with the same in letter and spirit as has been deliberated and agreed upon during the course of hearing on 04.09.2025. Scope of intra-court appeal: 22. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. Let us first examine the power of the Division Bench while entertaining a Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment/order of the learned Single Judge. This writ appeal has been nomenclatured as an application under Article 4 of the Orissa High Court Order, 1948 read with clause 10 of the Letters Patent Act, 1992. Letters Patent of the Patna High Court has Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 121 of 135 been made applicable to this Court by virtue of Orissa High Court Order, 1948. Letters Patent Appeal is an intra-court appeal where under the Letters Patent Bench, sitting as a Court of Correction, corrects its own orders in exercise of the same jurisdiction as vested in the Single Bench. (Ref: (1996) 3 Supreme Court Cases 52 : Baddula Lakshmaiah -Vrs.- Shri Anjaneya Swami Temple). The Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal should not disturb the finding of fact arrived at by the learned Single Judge of the Court unless it is shown to be based on no evidence, perverse, palpably unreasonable or inconsistent with any particular position in law. This scope of interference is within a narrow compass. Appellate jurisdiction under Letters Patent is really a corrective jurisdiction and it is used rarely only to correct errors, if any made. In the case of B. Venkatamuni -Vrs.- C.J. Ayodhya Ram Singh reported in (2006) 13 Supreme Court Cases 449, it is held that in an intra-court appeal, the Division Bench undoubtedly may be entitled to reappraise both questions of fact and law, but entertainment of a letters patent appeal is discretionary and normally the Division Bench would not, unless there exist cogent reasons, differ from a finding of fact arrived at by the Single Judge. Even a Court of first appeal which is the Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 122 of 135 final Court of appeal on fact may have to exercise some amount of restraint. Similar view was taken in the case of Umabai -Vrs.- Nilkanth Dhondiba Chavan reported in (2005) 6 Supreme Court Cases 243. In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax -Vrs.- Karnataka Planters Coffee Curing Work Private Limited reported in (2016) 9 Supreme Court Cases 538, it is held that the jurisdiction of the Division Bench in a writ appeal is primarily one of adjudication of questions of law. Findings of fact recorded concurrently by the authorities under the Act concerned (Income Tax Act) and also in the first round of the writ proceedings by the learned Single Judge are not to be lightly disturbed. Thus, a writ appeal is an appeal on principle where the legality and validity of the judgment and/or order of the Single Judge is tested and it can be set aside only when there is a patent error on the face of the record or the judgment is against established or settled principle of law. If two views are possible and a view, which is reasonable and logical, has been adopted by a Single Judge, the other view, howsoever appealing may be to the Division Bench; it is the view adopted by the Single Judge, which would, normally be allowed to prevail. If the discretion has been exercised by the Single Judge in good faith Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 123 of 135 and after giving due weight to relevant matters and without being swayed away by irrelevant matters and if two views are possible on the question, then also the Division Bench in writ appeal should not interfere, even though it would have exercised its discretion in a different manner, were the case come initially before it. The exercise of discretion by the Single Judge should manifestly be wrong which would then give scope of interference to the Division Bench. 23. The prayer in the writ petition filed by the Appellants precisely was to quash the letter dated 31.07.2014 issued by Respondent no.1 to the extent challenged in the writ application and for a direction to the Respondents to reinstate the Appellants in the services without attachment and imposition of any conditions and in accordance with letter dated 09.07.2014 of the Sub-Collector, Talcher issued in terms of the decisions taken in the meeting dated 06.07.2014 held in presence of the residents of village Hensamul (Talasahi), the Director Technical, MCL, Burla and MLA, Talcher on selection of resettlement site and on the issue of termination of 127 employees of MCL. The further prayer in the writ petition was to direct the Respondents not to take any coercive action against the Appellants till they are allotted plots physically in the resettlement site. Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 124 of 135 The decisions which were taken in the aforesaid meeting dated 06.07.2014 were as follows: (i) MCL authorities will reinstate the retrenched employees by 10.07.2014. There will be no break of service; (ii) Collector, Angul will be requested to convene the meeting of the PLARC at the earliest to discuss and finalise in principle the rehabilitation site; (iii) The MCL will start taking measures towards rendering the site hassle-free from legal perspective; (iv) The MCL authorities will arrange interim accommodation as would be decided by the PLRAC after the site is finalised in principle and on extension of such facilities, the villagers will start vacating the homestead land. The learned Single Judge found that the lands of the Appellants had been acquired and that they had already been paid the land acquisition compensation amount besides employment being provided to them and that they have also been provided with alternate accommodation in the quarters of the MCL. MCL authority submitted before the learned Single Judge that they were under process of allotting the alternate Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 125 of 135 sites and the same was being delayed for some technical reasons. The learned Single Judge directed the State authority to co-operate with the MCL authority in the matter of finalization of the alternate sites under the particular rehabilitation package. The Court found that MCL Company was in urgent need of mining in the locality, which was definitely in the larger interest of the country. The Court further held that the Appellants have no right to claim that they would vacate the homestead lands under their occupation only after they were provided with alternate house sites. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed vide impugned judgment and order dated 13.01.2015. The Writ Appeal was filed not only to set aside judgment and order dated 13.01.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge but also for a direction to the Respondents not to take any coercive action against the Appellants by evicting them from their dwelling houses and/or by terminating their employment, till they are physically allotted plots in the resettlement site. From the affidavit filed by the Respondents in the Writ Appeal, it appears that most of the Appellants have constructed houses over the plots allotted to them at R & R site and the Appellants are also staying in the company quarters Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 126 of 135 provided by MCL. Due to acquisition of village Hensamul (Talasahi), 321 employments/cash in lieu of employments have been provided by MCL as per Orissa R & R policies prevalent at the relevant point of time. It is further stated in the affidavit that there is no provision to issue ROR under CBA Act acquired lands and as per guidelines issued by the Ministry of Coal vide letter No.43022/1/2020-LAIR dated 22.04.2022, the land could be leased out to land oustees for 99 years. As per clause 4(5)(e) of the said guidelines, the allotted plots would be leased out in favour of respective allottees only after shifting of the Appellants to the site and as such, plot allotment orders have already been issued in their names. All the Appellants were allotted quarters for temporary accommodation till they shift to the R & R site. The quarters were allotted as per their eligibility and they have shifted to their allotted quarters. The Advocate Commissioner indicated in his report that some electric poles have not been wired and that some other electric poles were having wires in a state of disrepair and that no water pipes had been laid down for supply of water to the individual plots and that the water supply is wholly inadequate and made the entire colony uninhabitable. The report further indicated that three plots had been affected by waste Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 127 of 135 water coming from the neighbouring MCL rescue station and MCL authorities stated that special drains would be made for the said plots. The report further indicated that there were some issues relating to levelling and compacting the plots and that though the plots had been demarcated way back in 2014 but no such physical demarcation (except one or two dilapidated pillars) in respect of any of the plots was visible. The Appellants filed affidavit indicating therein that though they were eager to vacate the village as soon as possible, but are not able to shift to the resettlement site as the resettlement site lacks basic amenities like water supply, electricity etc. which were required to be provided to them as per rehabilitation package before they are asked to occupy the demarcated plots for construction of their houses or shelters. Respondents filed affidavit indicating thein that MCL has evicted and demolished the encroached area NLS School on 24.12.2024 and after eviction, MCL authorities issued the letters dt.07.01.2025 and 26.05.2025 to the allottees to take over the possessions of thirteen plots. All the pending works relating to erection of the electric poles and cable wires for all the plots would be erected within one month. The overhead tank has already been constructed and the same is functional. The Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 128 of 135 Superintending Engineer, RWS & S Division, Angul at Talcher, vide its letter dt.10.06.2025 has informed the General Manager, Bhubaneswari Area stating therein that rural piped water supply to R & R site for village Hensamul (Talasahi) in front of Balanda College has been completed and at the stage of commissioning. The main water pipelines have already been laid over the R & R site and the supply of water to the individual plots/house could be provided through Functional Household Tap Connection (FHTC) after submission of necessary documents along with applications by the Appellants to the office of RWS & S Division, Angul, Talcher. Special drain has already been constructed for taking out the waste water coming from the neighbouring MCL rescue station to the three plots. All the R & R plots have been levelled to the road level including thirteen plots which were encroached by NLS School. It is further stated that there is no dispute regarding demarcation of plots between the allottees and MCL since several allottees (i.e. 60 nos.) have already constructed their houses in the R & R site. After eviction of NLS school, the MCL authorities have demarcated thirteen plots by putting cement pillars. Tender with regard to ancillary developments on the resettlement site has been floated on 22.01.2025 and the construction of the same would be Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 129 of 135 completed by the time houses are constructed by the Appellants over the R & R site. The Appellants have been provided all the R & R benefits including employment benefits. They have been allotted resettlement plots at Balanda resettlement site and for temporary accommodation, the Appellants have been provided company quarters/their own accommodations. All the Appellants have been reinstated and consequential benefits have been given to them as stated in letter dt.31.07.2014. It is further stated that Hensamul (Talasahi) is at the edge of mines and at any moment, mining accident/untoward situation might happen if complete village is not evacuated. It further appears from the affidavit filed by the Respondents that so far as the stipulation at Sl. No.(i) of the letter dated 31.07.2014 relating to reinstatement of all the terminated employees without break in service and with immediate effect is concerned, the same has been duly implemented. So far as stipulation at Sl. No.(ii) is concerned, i.e., the villagers would not have to submit affidavit for the same, has not been insisted upon. So far as Sl. No.(iii) is concerned, all the Appellants except Sl. Nos.29 and 34, namely, Pratima Sahoo and Dasarathi Sahoo have been allotted plots. So far as Sl. No.(iv) is concerned, it is stated that for 97 Appellants, Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 130 of 135 in addition to the allocation of the plots, MCL quarter accommodation has been provided. So far as Sl. No.(v) is concerned, it is stated that MCL has also agreed to adjust the period of absence due to termination from service with payment of leave in credit of the individual and the same also has also been given effect to. The affidavit filed by the Respondents further indicate that out of 377 Project Displaced Families (PDFs), 223 PDFs have opted for cash compensation of Rs.6,32,000.00 paisa in lieu of Resettlement Plots and have voluntarily vacated their lands, both agricultural and dwelling houses and given physical possession of the same to MCL and the rest 154 PDFs have been allotted with the resettlement plots. Compensation for land and the structures have been paid to the Appellants and the building assistance has been sanctioned for the Appellants towards shifting and construction of houses. On 13.08.2025, the Collector & District Magistrate, Angul has issued Certificate of Completion of the Resettlement and Rehabilitation (R & R) of the Project Displaced Families of village Hensamul (Talasahi) under the provisions of para 7 (ii) of the R & R Policy, 2006. Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 131 of 135 The Appellants finally filed an affidavit raising four precise demands, inter alia, firstly, expeditious and timely completion of work at the Resettlement Site as per the approved plan preferably within a period of six months; secondly, to provide company quarters as transit accommodation for 27 Nos. of Appellants within a period of one month, subsequent to which, the said Appellants shall vacate their lands in the acquired area within a period of one month. In response to such precise demands raised by the Appellants, the Respondents filed an affidavit on 04.09.2025 acknowledging both the demands. It is stated therein that an earnest attempt would be made to meet the demand of the land losers. So far as second demand of the Appellants is concerned, it is stated that out of all the persons in terms of the list enclosed to the affidavit dated 04.09.2025, only 25 are stated to be not granted the alternative accommodation, who would be provided with alternative accommodation within a period of one month subject to their eligibility. From the affidavit filed by the Respondents, it appears that all the land losers have got the land acquisition compensation in terms of the applicable law. Besides, in terms of R & R Policy, the eligible persons have been allotted plots in front Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 132 of 135 of Balanda College for construction of R & R Colony. It is further stated that the resettlement site work is in advanced stage. Learned counsel for the Respondents also specifically stated that in so far as the first and second demands of the Appellants are concerned, the same would be accepted as it is. In regard to the other demands of the appellants, the same would be given as per the entitlements of the Appellants in accordance with the Odisha R & R Policy, 2006 on the basis of their individual entitlement/eligibility. When the matter was listed again on 10.09.2025 on being mentioned, the learned counsel for the Respondents reiterated that the Respondents shall stick to the undertaking given regarding the compliance of first and second demands of the Appellants. Conclusion: 24. In view of the foregoing discussions, since during pendency of the Writ Appeal, the Respondents have taken effective steps not only in reinstating all the terminated employees without break in service; allotment of the plots to the eligible Appellants at the R & R site; providing company quarters as transit accommodation; taking expeditious steps in making the R & R site habitable for which several allottees i.e. 60 nos. have already constructed their houses in such site and that the Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 133 of 135 Respondents have assured this Court to undertake further expeditious and timely completion of work at the resettlement site as per the approved plan preferably within a period of six months and to provide company quarters as transit accommodation to the rest of the deserved Appellants within a period of one month, no further order is required to be passed in the case. This Court expects that the Respondents shall not take any coercive action against the Appellants till the rest of the Appellants (which according to the Appellants are twenty-five in numbers), are provided with alternative accommodation within a period of one month subject to their eligibility. All the Appellants shall vacate their homestead lands and houses in the acquired area within a month thereafter so that the Respondent Company can physically occupy the same for continuation of mining operation of Bhubaneswari OCP in a peaceful manner. The Respondent Company shall carry out expeditious and timely completion of all the left out work at the resettlement site as undertaken. This Court sincerely believes that haves should follow their Dharma and extend the helping hands to the have- nots with compassion and on the basis of ethics, responsibility and commitment to the common good keeping ego aside. Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 134 of 135 Before parting with the case, we record our unreserved and uninhibited appreciation for the positive and responsive attitude, the efforts, the intelligence and the maturity shown by Mr. S.P. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate for the Appellants and Mr. K.M. Nataraj, learned Additional Solicitor General of India and Mr. Pitamber Acharya, learned Advocate General appearing for the Respondents for their able and valuable assistance without which it would have been extremely difficult to settle the long drawn legal battle between the parties. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is disposed of with a positive hope that the entire dispute shall be put a quietus. ............................ S.K. Sahoo, J. S.S. MISHRA, J. I agree. S.S. Mishra, J. ............................ Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 24th September 2025/RKMishra Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RABINDRA KUMAR MISHRA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 24-Sep-2025 10:44:55 Writ Appeal No.34 of 2015 Page 135 of 135