Orissa High Court
Chandra S. Das & Ors vs State Of Odisha & Ors on 16 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P (C) No.19682 of 2014
Chandra S. Das & Ors. ..... Petitioners
Mr. S. Sahoo, Advocate
Vs.
State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties
Mr. P.K. Muduli, AGA
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
MR. JUSTICE B.P. SATAPATHY
ORDER
16.01.2023
Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. None appears for the petitioners at the time of call.
3. Heard Mr. P.K. Muduli, learned Additional Government
Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties.
4. Perused the records. It appears that the petitioners have filed
this writ petition seeking direction to opposite parties no.1 to 4 to
re-determine the compensation amount and award afresh as per
the provisions contained in Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013.
5. Mr. P.K. Muduli, learned Additional Government Advocate
appearing for the State-opposite parties contended that though the
compensation amount has been determined, but the petitioners
claim higher compensation amount. Therefore, he contended that
if the petitioners claim higher compensation amount, they should
have approached the authority under Sections 18 and 23 of the
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Instead of
doing so, they have directly approached this Court by filing this
writ petition. It is contended that the case of the petitioners is
covered by the judgment of the apex Court in Indore
Development authority v. Manoharlal and Others etc., AIR 2020
SC 1496. It is further contended that since the award has already
been passed by the authority, as stated in paragraph-13 of the writ
petition, question of redetermination of compensation amount
does not arise.
6. Considering the contentions raised by learned Additional
Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties and
after going through the records, it appears that the case of the
petitioners is covered by the ratio decided by the Constitutional
Bench of the apex Court in Indore Development authority
(supra), sub-paragraphs-5 & 9 of Paragraph-363 whereof read as
follows:
"363 (5). In case a person has been tendered the compensation
as provided under Section 31(1) of the Act of 1894, it is not open
to him to claim that acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2)
due to non-payment or non-deposit of compensation in court.
The obligation to pay is complete by tendering the amount under
Section 31 (1). Land owners who had refused to accept
compensation or who sought reference for higher compensation,
cannot claim that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under
Section 24(2) OF THE Act of 2013.
Xxx xxx xxx
(9) Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 does not give rise to new
cause of action to question the legality8 of concluded
proceedings of land acquisition. Section 24 applies to a
proceeding pending on the date of enforcement of the Act of
2013, i.e., 1.1.2014. It does not revive stale and time-barred
claims and does not reopen concluded proceedings nor allow
landowners to question the legality of mode of taking possession
to reopen proceedings or mode of deposit of compensation in
the treasury instead of court to invalidate acquisition".
7. In view of such position, since the compensation amount
has already been determined and the petitioners claim for higher
compensation amount, they may have right to approach the
authority by filing an application under Sections-18 and 23 of the
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Instead of
doing so, they have approached this Court by filing this writ
petition, which is not maintainable.
8. Therefore, the writ petition merits no consideration and the
same is accordingly, dismissed.
(DR. B.R. SARANGI)
JUDGE
(B.P. SATAPATHY)
JUDGE
Alok
