Orissa High Court
Paradeep Phosphates Ltd vs State Of Odisha And Others on 6 July, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P (C) No. 3304 of 2019
Paradeep Phosphates Ltd. ..... Petitioner
Mr. S.K. Dash, Adv.
Vs.
State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Mr. S. Kanungo, AGA
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
MR JUSTICE M.S. RAMAN
ORDER
06.07.2023
Order No. This matter is taken up by hybrid mode.
04.
2. Heard Mr. S.K. Dash, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Mr. S. Kanungo, learned Addl. Government
Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties.
3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash
the order dated 30.11.2017 under Annexure-3, by which the
application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act has
been allowed without causing any inquiry and consequential
demand raised by the authority vide Annexure-2 dated 09.05.2018
for deposit of decrial dues in L.A. Case No.8/82 of village
Chauliapalanda.
4. Mr. S.K. Dash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
contended that in order to establish a fertilizer plant at Paradeep
under Kujanga Tahasil, opposite party no.1, in reference to the
request made by the Govt. of India, agreed to provide the land. As
a consequence thereof, opposite party no.1 provided land from
two different sources, namely, Government land and the land of
different private persons. The Govt. land was made available to
the petitioner through IDCO, a Govt. of Orissa undertaking, and
the private lands were made available after the same were
acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.
Consequentially, notification was issued under Section 4(1) of the
L.A. Act for acquiring the land from the private land owners of
different villages, namely, Sandhakuda, Udayachandpur,
Chauliapalanda, Bhitaragada and Bijayachandrapur. Some of the
land owners whose land were acquired in the notification under
Annexure-1, received compensation awarded by opposite party
no.3 under Section 11 of the L.A. Act, but asked the opposite
party no.3 to refer the matter under Section 18 of the L.A. Act for
higher compensation. As a consequence, number of cases were
registered before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division),
Jagatsinghpur. One of such case was registered as L.A. Misc. Case
No.344 of 2001, which was disposed of on 16.07.2009, where the
learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Jagatsinghpur has enhanced the
market value of the land to Rs.31,000/- per acre from Rs.12,500/-
and also allowed other statutory benefits. The petitioner being
aggrieved by the said order, preferred appeal before this Court
which was registered as LAA No. 85 of 2009. When the matter is
sub-judice, all on a sudden, opposite party no.3, vide letter dated
09.05.2018, demanded Rs.91,56,884/- from the petitioner without
providing the details of demand or the order passed in L.A. cases.
After receipt of the demand letter under Annexure-2, the petitioner
applied for certified copy of the order, in which the demand has
been raised, and got the same on 31.12.2018 under Annexure-3. It
is stated that since the order under Annexure-3 has been passed
without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the same
cannot be sustained in the eye of law. To substantiate his
contention, he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the
case of Paradeep Phosphates Ltd. v. State of Orissa and others,
107 (2009) CLT 796 : 2009 (Supp.1) OLR 1029.
5. Mr. S. Kanungo, learned Addl. Government Advocate
appearing for the State-opposite parties seeks time to file counter
affidavit. Since it is an old case of the year 2019 and even though
opportunity was given to the State Counsel to examine the
judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, till date no
counter affidavit is forthcoming from their side. Therefore, this
Court is not inclined to grant any further adjournment and
proceeded to decide the matter on the basis of the pleadings
available on record.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going
through the records, this Court finds that the facts, as enumerated,
is not in dispute and, as such, the order impugned was passed
under Section 28-A of the L.A. Act without giving any
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The purpose of
introducing the provisions contained under Section 28-A of the
L.A. Act is to give benefit to the privileged class. Therefore, the
order passed under Section 28-A of the L.A. Act should be
reasoned one and, as such, the concerned officer has to give
reasons for either accepting or rejecting application filed by the
parties. But in the instant case, the Land Acquisition Officer
passed order making reference to order passed in other application
and without taking note of the facts involved in this case. More so,
while passing the order impugned, the petitioner has not been
given opportunity of hearing. Once opportunity of hearing has not
been given to the petitioner, that ipso facto indicates that there is
gross violation of principles of natural justice. As such, the order
impugned cannot be sustained in the eye of law, in view of the
ratio decided by this Court in Paradeep Phosphates Ltd. (supra).
As a consequence thereof, the order dated 30.11.2017 passed by
the authority under Section 28-A of the L.A. Act, 1884 under
Annexure-3 cannot be sustained in the eye of law and the same is
liable to be quashed and is hereby quashed. Consequentially, the
demand raised by the authority under Annexure-2 dated
09.05.2018 is also quashed. The matter is remitted back to the
Land Acquisition Officer, M.I.P., Jagatsinghpur to consider the
same afresh and pass appropriate order in accordance with law by
giving opportunity of hearing to all the parties.
7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ
petition stands disposed of.
Ashok (DR. B.R. SARANGI)
JUDGE
(M.S. RAMAN)
JUDGE
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Date: 07-Jul-2023 12:03:15
