Sri Jago Majhi And Another vs State Of Orissa And Others

The present petition was filed in December 2005 alleging that the land of the Petitioners who are Scheduled Tribes (ST) had been forcibly acquired by the Opposite Parties in violation of the mandatory provisions under the Orissa Scheduled Areas Transfer of Immovable Property (By Scheduled Tribes) Amendment Regulation, 2000. The prayer was to restore the lands to the Petitioners in the original form and pay compensation for illegal damaging the crops raised thereon.

The petition was first listed for hearing on 10th January 2006. Status quo with regard to the possession of land was asked to be maintained by the parties. That interim order has continued since then.

In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Special Land Acquisition Officer, Rayagada, it is pointed out that the land of the Petitioners was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LA Act) for establishment of an Alumina Project by the Utkal Alumina International Limited (UAIL), on the strength of a requisition filed by Industrial Development Corporation of Odisha (IDCO) on 31st March 1995. It is stated that pursuant to the notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the LA Act read with Section 17 (4) thereof, a declaration under Section 6(1) was issued on 15th February 1996 and 30th April 1998. Following this an award was passed determining the compensation payable as Rs. 50,586/- in respect of each of the Petitioners. According to the Opposite Parties, the Petitioners received the awarded compensation amount without any objection or protest. Possession was then delivered of the land in question to IDCO on 28th March 1997 and in turn IDCO handed it over to UAIL on 24th April, 2000.

It is stated that after taking over the possession, UAIL had already started the project activity by land-levelling, construction of boundary wall, construction of R/R Colony and so on. Therefore, by the time status quo order was passed by this Court, Opposite Party No.4 was already in possession of the land in question. The stand of the Opposite Parties is that the Amendment Regulation of 2000 does not prohibit invoking the LA Act for the purposes of acquisition of land. It is additionally averred that a notice was served on each of the Petitioners on 19th July 2005 to come and receive the ex gratia amount of Rs.87,340/- each, but the Petitioners did not turn up to receive the said amount.

A separate counter affidavit has been filed by the UAIL. It is inter alia pointed out that since the land in question had not been transferred by the Petitioners to IDCO or UAIL directly, the prohibitions contained in the Amended Regulation of 2000 do not apply. It is confirmed that the possession was taken over by the UAIL on 24th April, 2000 from IDCO which was a recorded tenant in respect of the land in question.

A rejoinder affidavit has been filed. As regards the payment of compensation, the Petitioners claim that their thumb impressions were forcibly obtained on some documents. It is contended that the plea of the Opposite Parties that the Petitioners were paid Rs.50,000/- each is "completely illegal and unsustainable in law".

The above submissions have been considered. As regards payment of compensation for the acquisition of land in question, it is seen that the Opposite Parties (State) has enclosed with its reply copies of the proof of payment as Annexure-J/2. Although it does contain the thumb impressions, no material has been placed on record by the Petitioners, apart from a bare denial, to persuade the Court to doubt the genuineness of those documents.

The rejoinder is also silent on whether the Petitioners ultimately collected the ex gratia amount, which according to the Opposite Parties, was kept ready to be paid to them.

Since the present petition appears to have been filed more than 5 years after possession of the land in question was handed over to UAIL and nearly 8 years after the land acquisition award was passed, the status quo order passed by this Court on 10th January 2006 was to no avail as far as the Petitioners are concerned. With the alumina plant being in operation for nearly two decades, the Court does not propose at this length in time to disturb that status quo by interfering with the land acquisition notifications and consequential award, particularly since compensation is stated to have been paid and possession already taken over.

The Court would nevertheless want to ensure that each of the Petitioners did in fact receive the compensation amount and additionally are provided with the ex gratia amount. Accordingly, a direction is issued to the Collector, Rayagada to immediately contact each of the Petitioners, and confirm that each of them has received not only the original compensation amounts but are also paid the ex gratia amounts. He will also ascertain the present status of the Petitioners in respect of their access to the basic needs of shelter, health and livelihood. This exercise be completed within four weeks and a compliance report in the form of an affidavit be filed by the Collector Rayagada in this Court by the next date.

List on 1st February, 2022 for compliance.

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