Orissa High Court
Assistant Defence Estate Officer vs Saraswati Satpathy And Another on 9 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W. P. (C) Nos.30329 and 30330 of 2011
Assistant Defence Estate Officer, .... Petitioner
Bhubaneswar
Mr. A. K. Patra, Advocate
-versus-
Saraswati Satpathy and another .... Opposite Parties
(In W.P.(C) No.30329 of 2011)
Shakuntala Bera and others
(In W.P.(C) No.30330 of 2011)
Mr. P. K. Parhi, ASGI along with Mr. D. Satapathy, CGC,
Smt. S. Patnaik, AGA and Mr. S. K. Patnaik, Advocate for
Opp. Parties 1 to 7 (in W.P.(C) No.30330 of 2011)
CORAM:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
JUSTICE A. K. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
09.11.2021
Order No.
06. 1. The challenge in both these writ petitions by the Assistant
Defence Estate Officer (ADEO) is to the order passed on 7th
April, 2010 by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Balasore in Execution Case No.19 of 2006 (arising out of L. A.
Misc. Case No.233 of 2003) and Execution Case No.30 of 2004
(arising out of L.A. Misc. Case No.482 of 2003).
2. The question that arose before the Executing Court was the
date from which the interest on the land acquisition compensation
amount would become payable to the land oustee. In order to
answer this question, a further question that was raised was the
date on which the land oustee lost possession of the land in
question.
3. A reading of the impugned order of the Executing Court
reveals that a revised calculation sheet was filed by the Decree
Holders and a memo of objections was filed by the Judgment
Debtors. It further appears from the impugned order that there
was an admission by the learned counsel for the Judgment
Debtors i.e. the present Petitioner that "the date of award is the
date of possession." It is this sentence in the impugned order that
has prompted the present petition.
4. Leaving aside the question whether the present writ petitions
are at all maintainable against an interlocutory order of the
Executing Court, it appears from the counter affidavit filed in
W.P.(C) No.30330 of 2011 by the Land Acquisition Officer
(LAO) that the Award was passed on 20th January, 2001 and
possession was also taken over by the Collector, Balasore from
the oustee on the same date. What appears to have happened is
that the further possession in favour of the present Petitioner i.e.
ADEO was handed over by the Collector on 18th August, 2004
i.e. 3 years and 202 days after possession was taken over from
the land oustee under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (LA Act). This is explained in para 9 of the said counter
affidavit, which reads as under:
"9. That, in reply to the averments made in Paragraph-6 of
the writ petition, it is humbly submitted herewith that
private land measuring an area of Ac.324.07 dec. in
village-Jayadevkasba had been acquired for creation of
New Firing Point of PXE, Chandipur, Balasore. As per
provision contained U/S.16 of the L.A. Act, 1894, the
Collector Balasore had taken over possession on
20.01.2001 i.e. when the award made under Section-11.
For kind perusal, a copy of award dt.20.01.2001 passed
by the Collector, Balasore, is filed herewith as
ANNEXURE-A/9.
Further, in pursuance of Section 17 (3) (a) of L.A. Act,
1894, after payment of 80% of total amount of
compensation to the land losers and in this project after
payment of 90% of Rehabilitation Assistance to the land
losers, the land had been handed over to the Defence
Deptt. on 18.08.2004 i.e. after a period of 3 years 202
days from the taking over possession by the Collector
under Section 16."
5. In view of the fact that there is a clear admission as to the date
of the Award being on 20th January, 2001 and possession having
been taken over on that date itself by the Collector, it is not
possible to countenance the submission of Mr. P. K. Parhi,
learned Assistant Solicitor General of India that the Executing
Court erred in directing interest to be payable from the date of
handing over possession by the oustee and that it should be
calculated from the date the possession was further handed over
to the present Petitioner.
6. Para 11 of the same affidavit of Opposite Party No.9 i.e. the
LAO further explains why there was a delay of 3 years and 202
days in the Collector handing over possession of the lands in
question to the present Petitioner. It reads as under:
"11.That, in reply to the averments made in Paragraph-8
of the writ petition, it is humbly submitted herewith that
the Requisitioning Officer had deposited Rehabilitation
Assistance Package of Rs.5,00,00,000/- (Rupees Five
Crore) in two spells @ Rs.2.5 Crore in each time i.e. on
05.11.2002 and 26.03.2003.
Further, it is a fact that, although the compensation
amount towards land value of the acquired land had been
paid to the awardees but the possession of the land had
not been delivered to the Requisitioning Officer, i.e.
Defence Deptt. due to delay in deposit of Rehabilitation
Assistance Package amount by the Requisitioning Officer
and payment of the same to the land losers. Finally, after
payment of compensation and 90% Rehabilitation
Assistance, the land losers vacated the land and an area of
Ac.324.07 in Mouza-Jayadevkasba was handed over to
the Requisitioning Officer on 18.08.2004."
7. The above affidavit was filed way back on 7th April, 2015 and
till date, it has not been contradicted by the Petitioner.
8. In view of the above uncontroverted facts, no ground is made
out for interference with the impugned order of the Executing
Court. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. The interim
orders stand vacated.
9. There shall be no order as to costs.
10. An urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per the
Rules.
(Dr. S. Muralidhar)
Chief Justice
(A. K. Mohapatra)
Judge
M. Panda
