Mahendra Kumar Panda vs State Of Odisha And Others

The Petitioner has approached this Court with two prayers. The first is that a notice was issued to him on 13th March, 2008 (Annexure-9) asking him to produce the papers to establish his claim for compensation in respect of the land mentioned in the schedule to the aforementioned notice should be quashed. The second is for a direction to the Opposite Parties "to provide a suitable or rehabilitation package to the Petitioner after determining the valuation of the Petitioner's industrial unit by a committee consisting of qualified technical persons before acquiring...."

The averment in para 3 of the petition reads as under:

"3. That the petitioner who is an entrepreneur has established a Mineral Processing Unit under name and style of Kalinga Stone Works for the purpose of processing different kinds of minerals, by availing loan from different financial institutions and sources At Golagaon in the Kalinga Nagar Industrial Area in the district of Jajpur. The petitioner's industrial unit is established for more than 9 years on the land in Khata No.81/114, Plot No.498/564 Mouza - Golagaon covering an Area of Ac 1.00 dec. For establishing such industrial unit the petitioner has invested around Rs.35 lakhs by availing loan from different institutions and sources. The petitioner who is an unemployed educated young man, in order to, earn his livelihood and accelerate the process of industrialization, with much difficulties established the industrial unit instead of seeking employment in the Government or in any private sector."

In response to the notice issued by this Court to the Opposite Parties, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 and 3 by the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO), Kalinganagar (Opposite Party No.6) in which in para 5, it is stated as under:

"5. That in reply to the averment made in Para-1 it is submitted that at no point of time the petitioner has been assured rehabilitation package for his industrial unit. Basing on the petition dt. 23.12.2006 filed by the present petitioner with a prayer to shift his crusher unit to the proposed area earmarked for establishment of small scale industries, the Collector, Jajpur, had taken up the matter with the Managing Director, IDCO and requested to consider for allotment of Land to the petitioner. On verification it is ascertained that the petitioner is running the so-called small scale industrial unit illegally and unauthorizedly without obtaining permission from the competent authority as per the Notification No.9507-ENV-I-80-97 F & E dt. 13.05.1998 issued by Forest and Environment Department Government of Odisha. In the present case, there has been no approval from the competent authority i.e. State Pollution Control Board and Revenue Authority. So the contention for suitable rehabilitation of the petitioners industrial unit which is running without sanction of Law, is unsustainable."

Further, contrary to the assertions by the Petitioner in para 4 of the petition that the Petitioner's unit has been approved by the District Industries Center and that he has obtained necessary permission from the State Pollution Control Board, it is stated in the counter affidavit of Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 in para 6 as under:

"6. That the Pollution Control Board and District Revenue authority have clarified that the petitioner, who has established a mineral processing unit for the purpose of processing different kind of minerals, has not obtained any permission as required under the provisions of Notification No.9507-ENV-I-80-97 Dt. 13.05.98 of Forest and Environment Department, Govt. of Orissa which is mandatory before setting up the unit. A copy of the notification dated 13.5.98 is filed as Annexure-A. Followed by the Notification, as stated above, the erstwhile Revenue and Excise Department vide its letter No.40517 dated 29.7.99 addressed to all Collectors, issued a guidelines for settlement of minor minerals through permit, lease and auction sale against the persons carrying on operation of stone crushers in the State. From the aforesaid guidelines, it is manifest that for setting up of a crusher unit the owner must conform to the sitting criteria as mentioned in the said government order, a copy of which is filed as Annexure-B."

In other words, the repeated assertions by the Opposite Parties is that the Petitioner has set up the Mineral Processing Unit and is running it illegally and unauthorizedly. Therefore, his claim for compensation for shifting and special package for rehabilitation "is not sustainable in the eye of law and the same is liable to be rejected."

The said counter affidavit was filed by the Opposite Party No.6 way back on 4th March, 2010. However, for over 11 years now the Petitioner has not chosen to file a rejoinder affidavit. Consequently, the above averments in the counter affidavit of Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 have remained uncontroverted.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner then sought to contend that even if the Petitioner is not entitled to rehabilitation he should still be compensated for the land.

When asked to show any averments in the writ petition that the Petitioner is the owner of or has any interest in the land in question, counsel for the Petitioner was unable to do so. In fact, not a single document has been placed on record to substantiate the claim.

Further, the plea of Mr. B.N. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner that he should be compensated not under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 but under the 2013 Act is also without merit. He has been unable to demonstrate that the Petitioner is either the owner of or has any interest in the land in question or has an industrial unit validly operating thereon.

Consequently, the Court is unable to grant any of the reliefs as prayed for by the Petitioner. The writ petition is dismissed...

................................