The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.17749 of 2015 Dillip Kumar Pattajoshi (since dead), through L.Rs …. Petitioner Mr. R.K. Acharya, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Others …. Opposite Parties
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Ishwar Mohanty, ASC CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE M. S. RAMAN Order No. 13. I.A. No.14642 of 2019
Decision
ORDER 16.02.2023 1. For the reasons stated in the application, the prayer for substitution of deceased Petitioner is allowed. 2. The I.A. is, accordingly, disposed of. W.P.(C) No.17749 of 2015 3. This writ petition has been filed by the resident of Mahavirpada, Bhawanipatna, Dist-Kalahandi claiming that his land in Plot No.1366 of an area Ac.1.17 decimals corresponding to Khata No.15 of Mouza-Junagarh should be acquired under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘2013 Act’) since the award in terms of Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Page 1 of 5 Act, 1894 (LA Act) was not passed within the time stipulated therein. 4. The relevant facts are that a notice under Section 4 of the LA Act was issued on 22nd October, 2007 for acquisition of the Petitioner’s aforementioned land and declaration under Section 6(1) of the LA Act was also issued on 3rd November, 2008. As far as Petitioner’s parcel of land is concerned, the award was passed by the LA Collector only on 12th May, 2015, i.e., nearly seven years after the declaration under Section 6(1) of the LA Act. 5. The above facts are not disputed by the Opposite Parties in their counter affidavit in the present case. No reasons have been given for the delay in passing the award. In fact, in paragraph-9 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that the Petitioner was invited to attend the Office of the LA Collector on 12th May, 2015 for receiving the compensation amount on or before 27th May, 2015, but that the Petitioner did not attend and collect the money determined to be paid to him under the said award. 6. The further fact which is not disputed, is that on 1st January, 2014 the 2013 Act came into operation and it repealed the LA Act. The consequences of the repeal of the LA Act and its effect on proceedings that were still pending as on the date of coming into force of the 2013 Act have been anticipated by Section 24 of the 2013 Act which reads as under:- “24. Land Acquisition process under Act No.1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases. – (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any Page 2 of 5 case of land acquisition proceeding initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894),- (a) Where no award under Section 11 of the said Land Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation shall apply; or (b) Where an award under said section 11 has been made, then such proceeding shall continue under the provisions of the said Land Acquisition Act, as if the said Act has not been repealed. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), where an award under the said section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate it so chooses, shall the if Government, proceedings of in such accordance with the provisions of this Act: initiate land acquisition afresh Provided that where an award has been made and compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under section 4 of the said Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act.” 7. Section 24 of the 2013 Act now stands interpreted by the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal & Others (2020) 8 SCC 129. The summary of the answers provided by the said judgment to the various issues addressed therein is provided in paragraph-366 of the judgment (SCC). In paragraph-366.1 the present scenario has been envisaged, viz., the award consequent upon the proceedings initiated Page 3 of 5 under the LA Act, not being passed as on the date of coming into force of the 2013 Act on 1st January, 2014. Paragraph-366.1 reads as under: “Under the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) in case the award is not made as on 1-1-2014, the date of commencement of the 2013 Act, there is no lapse of proceeding shall continue as provided under Section 24(1)(b) of the 2013 Act under the provisions of the 2013 Act.” 8. It is now, therefore, clear that in a scenario where no award is made under the LA Act in respect of the proceedings initiated thereunder prior to coming into force of the 2013 Act, i.e., prior to 1st January, 2014, there would be no lapse of the land acquisition proceeding but “compensation has to be determined under the provisions of the 2013 Act”. 9. Therefore, in the present case, the compensation amount for the land of the Petitioner that has been acquired by the Government of Odisha, has to be determined in terms of the 2013 Act. It is accordingly directed that the matter will once again be placed before the Land Acquisition Collector, Kalahandi (Opposite Party No.5) for redetermination of the compensation payable to the Petitioner in terms of the 2013 Act. The matter will be taken up by the Opposite Party No.5 on 1st May, 2023, on which date the Petitioner will appear with a downloaded copy of this order. After hearing the Petitioner, the Opposite Party No.5 will pass an appropriate order re- determining the compensation amount payable to the Petitioner not later than 1st July, 2023. The payment of the determined Page 4 of 5 compensation amount should be made to the Petitioner strictly in terms of the 2013 Act within a further period of eight weeks thereafter. 10. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. Chief Justice (Dr. S. Muralidhar) Judge (M. S. Raman) MRS/Laxmikant Page 5 of 5