The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.25998 of 2023 Madhu Murmu and others …. Petitioners Mr. Sourav Suman Bhuyan, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others
Legal Reasoning
…. Opposite Parties Mr. Ashok Kumar Parija, Advocate General along with Mr. Harmohan Dhal, Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State, Mr. S. N. Dash, Advocate on behalf of Mr. P. K. Mohanty, Senior Advocate for O.P. No.7 and Mr. Venugopal Mahapatra, Advocate for O.P. No.9 CORAM: ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DR. B.R. SARANGI JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
Decision
ORDER 20.12.2023 Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. I. A. No.18093 of 2023 03. 1. Heard Mr. Sourav Suman Bhuyan, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Mr. Ashok Kumar Parija, learned Advocate General along with Mr. Harmohan Dhal, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, Mr. S. N. Dash, learned counsel on behalf of Mr. P. K. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel for Opposite Party No.7 and Mr. Venugopal Mahapatra, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.9. 2. This is an application filed by the Petitioner seeking amendment of the cause title of the writ petition. Page 1 of 5 3. Mr. Bhuyan has contended that there is a wrong name and description of Opposite Party No.9 in the cause title of the writ petition and, therefore, he has filed this application for correction of the same as per the schedule to the application. Accordingly, a prayer is made to allow this application. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties have no objection to the said application. 5. Considering the grounds stated therein, the amendment sought for is allowed. The Petitioner is permitted to make necessary correction to the cause title indicating the correct name and details of Opposite Party No.9 as per the schedule to the application. ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE (M.S. RAMAN) W.P.(C) No.25998 of 2023 1. The Vakalatnama filed by Mr. Venugopal Mahapatra, learned counsel on behalf of newly impleaded Opposite Party No.9 in Court today, is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The Petitioners have filed this writ petition praying for quashing of the order dated 22nd June, 2023 passed by the Collector, Mayurbhanj (Opposite Party No.2) in Misc. Case No.13 of 2023 (Annexure-11), by which the Collector, in compliance with the order of this Court dated 10th March, 2023 passed in W.P.(C) Page 2 of 5 No.5695 of 2023, rejected the representation/objection filed by the Petitioners to drop the proposal of establishment of Rungta Steel Pvt. Ltd. in their village Anandpur. 4. On 30th August 2023, the following contention of learned counsel for the Petitioners was taken note of by this Court and notice was issued to the Opposite Parties. rejected “Mr. S. Bhuyan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that earlier the petitioners had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.5695 of 2023 challenging the action of the opposite parties with regard to allotment of land to M/s. Rungta Metals Pvt. Ltd. for industrial purposes and the said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 10.03.2023 directing the Collector, Mayurbhanj to consider the representation filed by the petitioners within a period of three months. It is contended that in compliance of the order dated 10.03.2023, opposite the party 2-Collector, Mayurbhanj has representation, vide order dated 22.06.2023 under Annexure-11. It is further contended that the Collector, Mayurbhanj, while rejecting the representation of the petitioners, found that no rule has been notified by the Government of Odisha regarding implementation of Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Area) Act (PESA Act) in the State till date and that on the basis of the report submitted by the Tahasildar, Rairangpur, the PESA Act is not implemented in the district of Mayurbhanj and as per the provisions of Acticle-244(1) and Fifth Schedule of the Constitution of India, the G.P. resolution for establishment of Rungta Steel Pvt. Ltd in Mouza-Kantabani (part), Anandapur, Dandbose (part) has been obtained and that the Resettlement & Rehabilitation along with compensation will be made to the affected families as per OFRCTLARR Act, 2013 paying attention to the provisions of the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution. Therefore, it is contended that such finding of the Collector, Mayurbhanj is absolutely an outcome of non-application of mind, inasmuch as once Mayurbhanj district has been declared as a scheduled area, as per Fifth Schedule of the Page 3 of 5 It is that further contended Constitution of India, PESA Act will automatically apply. Thereby, non-implementation of PESA Act is absolutely arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the provisions of law. the Tahasildar, Rairangpur has given a wrong report, on the basis of which the Collector, Mayurbhanj has arrived at such a finding. It is further contended that the village-Anandpur is the birth place of great scholar like Pandit Raghunath Murmu, who is the founder of Santali Language and every year Santali people across the country gather there to observe the birth and death of such a great person. In the event the said village is acquired for the purpose of establishment of Rungta Steel Pvt. Ltd., it will lose its sanctity. Apart from that, it is contended that the finding arrived at by the Collector, Mayurbhanj that the rulings cited by the petitioners have no relevance to the fact and circumstances of the case is not applicable to the case of the petitioners. Therefore, the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon Samatha v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1997 SC 3297 and Orissa Mining Corporation v. Union of India and Ors (the Vedanta-Niyamgiri Judgment), 2013 (6) SCR 881. It is contended that without adhering to the said judgments, the Collector, Mayurbhanj has passed the impugned order dated 22.06. 2023 under Annexure-11.” 5. Pursuant to the above order, the Collector, Mayurbhanj-Opposite Party No.2 has himself filed the counter affidavit on behalf of Opposite Parties Nos.1 to 6 on 9th October, 2023. In paragraph-3 of the said affidavit, the Collector has candidly stated as follows: “3. That at the outset, it is humbly submitted, the Opposite Party No.2 prays to withdraw the order dated 22.06.2023 under Annexure-11 wherein it has been mentioned inadvertently that (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “PESA Act”) are not applicable to the district of Mayurbhanj. It is submitted most respectfully that the district of Mayurbhanj is a the Scheduled Area under Constitution of India. Therefore, the provisions of the the Fifth Schedule to Page 4 of 5 PESA Act shall be applicable to the district of Mayurbhaj. The Opposite Parties sincerely apologies for the same.” 6. In view of the admission made by the Collector, Mayurbhanj- Opposite Party No.2 in his counter affidavit, which has been quoted hereinabove and having withdrawn the order dated 22nd June, 2023 under Annexure-11, nothing more remain to be adjudicated by this Court at this stage. Thus, the matter is relegated to the stage of consideration of the representation of the Petitioners by the Collector afresh by giving opportunity of hearing to all the parties. 7. With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE (M.S. RAMAN) M. Panda Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MRUTYUNJAYA PANDA Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 21-Dec-2023 18:19:32 Page 5 of 5