The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 17477 of 2024 Balaram Behera …. Petitioner Mr. Krushna Ch. Dash, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and Ors. …. Opposite Party Mr. Arupananda Das, Addl. Government Advocate CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Date of Judgment: 08.08.2024 Chittaranjan Dash, J. 1.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Das, learned Additional Government Advocate. 2. By means of this writ petition, the Petitioner seeks Rehabilitation and Resettlement (hereinafter referred to as “R&R”) benefits as per Odisha Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy 2006 as amended up to August 2013 while challenging the order dated 10.01.2024 passed by Collector, Angul. 3. The background facts of the case are that in the year 2000, IDCO acquired land through the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO), Angul, for the establishment of an industry i.e. JSPL in Angul District. This acquisition included the Petitioner’s homestead lands recorded in the name of the Petitioner’s father, Benudhar Behera (Khatian Nos. 12 & 13, Plot Nos. 44/449, 43/433, 46/448, and 44, totalling 1.475 Acres). The Petitioner received compensation for the concerned land in 2008 in LAC No. 25/2006, but the Resettlement and Rehabilitation (R&R) benefits were not provided to him. On 25.08.2020, the Collector, Angul, directed the Land Acquisition Officer to conduct an enquiry into the Petitioner’s grievance. An enquiry was conducted on 15.10.2020 and the report was forwarded to the Project Director, Rehabilitation, on 19.10.2020. The Petitioner filed Writ Petition
Decision
before this Court vide WP(C) No. 22367/2021, which was disposed of on 13.08.2021, with a direction to the Collector, Angul, to pass a reasoned order by 22.11.2021. The Collector having not complied with this order, led the Petitioner to file a contempt petition (CONT No. 7149/2023) on 03.10.2023. Upon receipt of order in the contempt case, the Collector dismissed the Petitioner’s claim by order dated 10.01.2024, prompting this writ petition. 4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner, submits that his classification as a Project Affected Family (PAF) rather than a Project Displaced Family (PDF) is incorrect and unjust, given the specific circumstances of his case. Firstly, the Petitioner’s family was significantly affected by the land acquisition for the JSPL project, which included the loss of their homestead land. Despite receiving compensation for the land acquired in 2008, the essential R&R benefits, which are crucial for families displaced from their primary residences, have not been provided to the Petitioner. He asserts that the Odisha Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy, 2006, as amended up to August 2013, stipulates that families who lose their homestead land and are displaced from their primary residences are eligible for PDF status and the associated benefits. The learned counsel, further submits that despite constructing a new house on the remaining Page 2 of 6 portion of the land, his family was indeed displaced from their original homestead land, which should entitle him to be classified as a PDF and that the classification as a PAF, as opposed to a PDF, is discriminatory and legally untenable. It is highlighted that other families in similar situations, including those who constructed new homes on their remaining land, were categorised as PDFs and received the appropriate R&R benefits. He argues that the Petitioner’s loss of his original home and livelihood due to the project should outweigh the fact that he constructed new buildings on the unacquired land. 5. Mr. Das, learned AGA, states that the classification of the Petitioner as a PAF is in strict adherence to the definitions provided in the Odisha Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy, 2006 (amended up to August 2013). According to Clause 8 of the Policy, a PDF is defined as a family that has lost their homestead land and has been displaced as a result. The Petitioner’s claim to be a PDF is contested by the fact that he has retained and utilised a portion of the acquired land. Mr. Das asserts that the joint enquiry report dated 15.09.2022 confirms that the Petitioner has constructed a new house on the remaining portion of Plot No. 44, which was not acquired, which thus, contradicts the condition of complete displacement required for PDF classification. The Petitioner and his family members have received compensation for the land and structures acquired and the compensation for the same was provided in 2008 under LAC No. 25/2006, which was accepted by the family, indicating that the Petitioner was compensated for the loss of his original homestead. Page 3 of 6 He further submits that the socio-economic survey conducted by NKCDS and the subsequent classification by the RDC (ND), Sambalpur, classified the Petitioner as a PAF based on his residual ownership and use of the remaining land. This classification was done in accordance with the established procedures and has been upheld by various reports. Mr. Das concluded his argument by saying that it is evident that the classification of the Petitioner’s family as a Project Affected Family (PAF) rather than a Project Displaced Family (PDF) is consistent with the applicable laws, policies, and factual evidence. The impugned order of the Collector, Angul in this regard is legally sound and in compliance with the relevant provisions. 6. A joint enquiry was made on 18.09.2022 comprising of Land Acquisition Officer (General), Angul, Tahasildar, Banarpal, Representative of E.D., JSPL, Angul to enquire on Misc. Case No. 110/2021 arising out of W.P.(C) No. 22367/2021, and the joint enquiry report was furnished on 15.09.2022. The report clearly indicates that the Petitioner retained a portion of land on the balanced area which is currently unacquired, on which he has constructed two buildings. This fact directly influences the classification of the Petitioner as a Project Affected Family (PAF) rather than a Project Displaced Family (PDF). Under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereafter “ RFCTLARR Act”) and the Odisha Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy, 2006, the distinction between PDF and PAF hinges on the degree of displacement experienced. A PDF is defined as a family that has been wholly displaced from their original homestead land, while a PAF is a family that, despite being affected, retains some land or property and has not been entirely Page 4 of 6 displaced. Clause 2(d) of 2006 Policy defines ‘displaced family’ means a family ordinarily residing in the project area prior to the date of publication of notification under the provisions of the relevant Act and on account of acquisition of his/her homestead land is displaced from such area or required to be displaced. As per section 3(k) of RFCTLARR Act, ‘displaced family’ means any family, who on account of acquisition of land has to be relocated and resettled from the affected area to the resettlement area. ‘Affected family’ has been defined in section 3(c) of RFCTLARR Act. 7. From the impugned order dated 10.01.2024, it is evident that the Collector has meticulously assessed the evidence placed, including the joint enquiry report dated 15.09.2022 and the correspondence from the Land Acquisition Officer, to arrive at a reasoned decision regarding the Petitioner’s status. The order correctly underscores that the suit land falls under Kissam Talla-II, a classification pivotal in determining the Petitioner’s eligibility for resettlement and rehabilitation benefits. The determination that the Petitioner’s family was not entirely displaced by the acquisition aligns with the established criteria for categorising affected families. 8. Furthermore, the Petitioner is placing his reliance on a report signed by Revenue Inspector, Badakerjang, dated 10.04.2024, which is annexed as Annexure-5. This report appears to have been prepared without formal authorisation or direction from any relevant authority. It lacks official endorsement and does not reference any memo number or date, rendering its authenticity questionable. Moreover, this report does not pertain to the proceedings of Misc. Case No. 42/2023, nor does it address the specifics of the Petitioner’s land acquisition Page 5 of 6 case in a manner consistent with the RFCTLARR Act. Consequently, the report cannot be considered reliable or valid evidence in contesting the established findings of the enquiry report and the Collector’s decision. 9. Therefore, the impugned order correctly differentiates between PDF and PAF based on the evidence that the Petitioner has not been completely displaced from his original land. The Petitioner’s ability to construct and maintain buildings on the remaining unacquired land supports the classification as a PAF, not a PDF. It is apparent on the face of record that on account of acquisition of land, the family of the Petitioner is not relocated and resettled from the affected area to the resettlement area rather the Petitioner has constructed a new house on the remaining unacquired portion of plot No.44. Given the factual findings and the procedural context, the impugned order is both justified and consistent with the RFCTLARR Act and the Odisha R&R Policy. 10. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed being devoid of merit, however, the Petitioner is at liberty to file the matter afresh in case the residue land/building is acquired in the future, thereby necessitating a re-evaluation of his status and entitlements under the relevant resettlement and rehabilitation policies. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BIJAY KETAN SAHOO Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 08-Aug-2024 18:05:19 A.K.Pradhan/Bijay (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge (S.K. Sahoo) Judge Page 6 of 6