The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) NO.38447 OF 2023 Antaram @ Anantaram Rajput …. Petitioner, Mr.Goutam Misra, Sr.Advocate, Mr.J.R. Deo, Advocate. State of Odisha & Others -versus- CORAM: …. Opposite Parties. Mr. G.N. Rout, ASC. MR. JUSTICE D.DASH MR. JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY ORDER 29.11.2023 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement (virtual/physical) mode. 2.
Legal Reasoning
obligation to have a prima facie view on the right so set up by the party to receive the compensation either in whole or part. The claim/rights so set up must not be fanciful. It has to be borne in mind that a person merely stating to have the right over the compensation is not to be entertained for reference as a post office since adoption of such a course had its disastrous consequences befalling upon the land loosers who are Page 3 of 5 // 4 // actually affected, in getting trapped under the mischievous plots hatched by such unscrupulous persons standing up as claimants to harass the actual persons who suffer so as to settle their scores for achieving the oblique purpose. 8. Adverting to the case in hand, the land under Khata No.6 is recorded in the name of Ugrasen Rajput, s/o. Biswanath Rajput; whereas Khata No.19 stands recorded in the name of Tribeni Rajput. Ugrasen and Tribeni both are dead and they have left behind their legal heirs as shown in the Yadast record which is not in dispute. The Petitioner is the recorded owner in respect of the land under Hal Khata No.1 on that very village: Antapali where the land under Khata No.6 & 19 situate. In the said record of right in respect of the land under Khata No.1, the Petitioner’s father is described as “Dhoba Rajput”. The land stands recorded in the name of the Petitioner under Rayati status. More important to note is that, said land under Khata No.1 has also been acquired for the project and this Petitioner has received the compensation assessed for acquisition of the said land under Khata No.1. Having so received the compensation; the Petitioner now claims his right over the compensation payable in respect of acquisition of the land under Khata Nos.6 & 19 on that mouza: Antapali asserting himself be the son of “Ugrasena Rajput” who is the recorded tenant in respect of the land under Khata No.6. The Petitioner when states that the name of his father has been wrongly mentioned as “Dhoba” in the record of right of the land under Khata No.1, that noting he has never challenged till date. The Petitioner thus having received the compensation towards acquisition of land under Khata No.1 which was standing Page 4 of 5 // 5 // recorded in his name being the son of Dhoba Rajput and accepting his status as suich; is now estopped from setting up his right over the compensation payable for the acquisition of the land under Khata Nos.6 & 19 in posing himself to be the son of “Ugrasena” and not the son of ‘Dhoba’. On the above factual settings of the case, the right set up by the Petitioner when has absolutely no base to stand; the Opposite Party No.2 did commit no error in refusing to refer the matter to the LAR&R Authority. 9. In view of the aforesaid, we find the writ petition to be devoid of any merit. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules. Narayan Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: NARAYAN HO Designation: Peresonal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 30-Nov-2023 17:54:18 (D. Dash), Judge. (G.Satapathy), Judge. Page 5 of 5
Arguments
Mr. Goutam Misra, learned Senior Counsel enters appearance on behalf of the Petitioner by filing Memorandum in Court today, which is taken on record. 3. The Petitioner by filing this writ petition has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article-226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in advancing a prayer for quashing an order dated 31.08.2023 passed by the Opposite Party No.2 as at Annexue-6 and direct the Opposite Party No.2 to refer the application under Annexure-5 filed by the Petitioner to the Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Sambalpur (in short, the LAR&R Authority) in terms of the provision contained in section-64 of the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, the LAR&R Act). 4. Heard Mr. G. Misra, learned Senior Counsel at length. He strenuously argued that under no circumstance, the Opposite Party Page 1 of 5 // 2 // No.2 could have refused to refer the matter to the LAR&R Authority, when it relates to the apportionment of compensation by adjudication of the case/claim advanced by the Petitioner in so far as the lands under Khata Nos. 6 & 19 of mouza: Antapali are concerned. 5. We have carefully read the averments taken in the petition and have gone through the documents annexed (Annexures-1 to 7). 6. The Petitioner presented an application addressed to the LAR&R Authority, Sambalpur before the Opposite Party No.2- (Special Land Acquisition Officer, Suktel Irrigation Project), Balangir praying therein to refer the matter to the LAR&R Authority under section-64(1) of the LAR&R Act. The claim of the Petitioner is as to the share over the compensation in respect of the land under Khata Nos. 6 & 19 of village Antapali which have been acquired for the project. The Petitioner before approaching the Opposite Party No.2 asserting his share over the said compensation payable in respect of the land under Khata Nos. 6 & 19 of mouza: Antapali, had filed Civil Suit No.67 of 2023 in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Balangir. The plaint filed in the said suit was rejected under Order-7 Rule 11 of the Code on the face of the provision contained in section-63 of the LAR&R Act. The Opposite Party No.2 thereafter has refused to make the reference to the LAR&R Authority pursuant to the application filed by the Petitioner as at Annexure-5. The order of refusal passed by the Opposite Party No.2 has been impugned herein. Page 2 of 5 // 3 // 7. As provided in section-64 of the LAR&R Act, when any person interested who has not accepted the award makes a written application to the Collector for the determination of the Authority as to his objection to the measurement of the land, amount of compensation, the person to whom the compensation is payable, the rights of rehabilitation and resettlement under Chapter-V & VI or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested, the Collector shall make a reference to the Appropriate Authority. However, the provision of section-67 of the said Act reads that the amount of compensation being settled, if any dispute arises as to apportionment of the same or in part thereof or as to the persons whom the same or any part thereof be payable, the Collector may refer such dispute to the Authority. The Collector on receiving an application for referring the matter to the LAR&R Authority as to the apportionment is to keep in view the nature of objection taken as to the grant of compensation to the awardees in terms of the award passed by it. The use of the word “refer” in section-67 of the Act certainly relates to that dispute which stands to be adjudicated upon in view of the rights set up by the applicant to receive the compensation. The Collector therefore is under the legal