Orissa High Court
Prasanna Swain And Others vs Union Of India And Others on 13 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.2042 of 2014
Prasanna Swain and others .... Petitioners
Mr.P.K.Mohanty,Sr. Advocate
-versus-
Union of India and others .... Opposite Parties
Mr.P.K.Muduli, AGA
Mr.P.C.Mohapatra, Advocate
(for Opposite Party No.5)
CORAM:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
13.08.2021
Order No.
24. 1. The challenge in this petition is to a notification issued under
Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 5th December,
2013 proposing acquisition of land for the purposes of the
Astarang Port in the district of Puri.
2. This Court has heard at length the submissions of Mr. P. K.
Mohanty, learned Senior counsel appearing for the Petitioners
and Mr.P.K. Muduli, learned Additional Government Advocate,
appearing for the State as well as Mr. P. C. Mohapatra, learned
counsel for Opposite Party No.5.
3. One of the first issues raised by Mr. Mohanty is that the Right
to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ('2013 Act') although
came into with effect from 1st January, 2014, was published in the
Gazette on 27th September, 2013 itself and the notification
bringing the 2013 Act to force with effect from 1st January, 2014
was published on 19th December, 2013. According to him, on
account of the proximity of the impugned notification with the
above dates, it must be construed that it is the 2013 Act that will
apply and not the 1894 Act to the acquisition proceedings. He
makes this submission despite himself referring to Section 24 (1)
(a) of 2013 Act which makes the position abundantly clear and
reads as under:
"24.Land acquisition process under Act No.1 of 1894
shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases.-
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in
any case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894),-
(a) where no award under section 11 of the said Land
Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of
this Act relating to the determination of compensation
shall apply; "
4. Mr. Mohanty seeks to place reliance on the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand
Misrimal Solanki AIR 2014 SC 982. However, the said decision
has been overruled by the subsequent Constitution Bench
judgment of the Supreme Court in Indore Development
Authority v. Manoharlal AIR 2020 SC 1496, the relevant
paragraphs of which reads as under:
"362.Resultantly, the decision rendered in Pune
Municipal Corporation & Anr. (AIR 2014 SC 982) (supra)
is hereby overruled and all other decisions in which Pune
Municipal Corporation (AIROnline 2014 SC 10) (supra)
has been followed, are also overruled. The decision in
Shree Balaji Nagar Residential Association (supra) cannot
be said to be laying down good law, is overruled and
other decisions following the same are also overruled. In
Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra (Dead)
through L.Rs. and Ors., (AIR 2018 SC 824) (supra), the
aspect with respect to the proviso to Section 24(2) and
whether 'or' has to be read as 'nor' or as 'and' was not
placed for consideration. Therefore, that decision too
cannot prevail, in the light of the discussion in the present
judgment.
363. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the
questions as under:
1. Under the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) in case the
award is not made as on 1.1.2014 the date of
commencement of Act of 2013, there is no lapse of
proceedings. Compensation has to be determined under
the provisions of Act of 2013.
............"
5. The legal position being abundantly clear, the Court finds no
merit in the first submission.
6. The second submission is that there are sufficient grounds
available with the Petitioners to object to the acquisition
proceedings. The Court at this stage would not like to comment
on the merit of this submission except to note that the Petitioners
claim to have already filed their objections under Section 5(A) of
the 1894 Act. However, Mr. Muduli points out that it is not clear
whether and when in fact those objections were submitted in the
office of the Land Acquisition Officer. In any event, if such
objections have been filed, they will now be examined and
proceeded with in accordance with law.
7. The interim order passed by this Court on 19th March, 2014 is
hereby vacated.
8. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.
9. An urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per Rules.
(Dr. S. Muralidhar)
Chief Justice
( B.P. Routray)
Judge
C.R. Biswal
