Orissa High Court
Mitu Naik And Others vs Collector And District .... Opp. ... on 13 May, 2025
Author: S.K. Sahoo
Bench: S.K. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 13309 of 2025
Mitu Naik and others .... Petitioners
Mr. Kamal Behari Parida,
Senior Advocate
-versus-
Collector and District .... Opp. Parties
Magistrate, Angul and
others
Mr. Partha Sarathi Nayak,
Additional Government
Advocate
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. MISHRA
ORDER
Order No. 13.05.2025
01. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).
The petitioners have filed this writ petition for a
direction to the opposite parties to grant the benefits
of the R&R schemes, 2006 as amended in 2013 as the
land oustees of village Lachhmanpur as per the letter
dated 30.07.2005 of the opposite party no.4 (Special
Land Acquisition Officer, Mahanadi Coal Field Ltd.) in
terms of the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Mahanadi Coal Fields
Ltd. and another vrs. Mathias Oram and others,
2022 LiveLaw (SC) 916 : AIR 2022 SC 5723.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted
that earlier the petitioners approached this Court in
W.P.(C) No. 16574 of 2018 for a direction to the
opposite party no.3-Rehabilitation Officer, MCL to
make payment of fair compensation amount in respect
of the land acquired and also to provide rehabilitation
and re-settlement benefit. The said writ petition was
disposed of vide order dated 08.02.2019 and liberty
was granted to the petitioners to approach the Claims
Commission, which has been constituted by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court to hear the grievance of the
land oustee in respect of the land acquired for
establishment of the Mahanadi Coal Field. Learned
counsel for the petitioners submits that in terms of
such order of this Court though the petitioners
approached the Claims Commission and filed
objection, but the case was not registered. The
petitioners were informed that the tribunal has been
set up under Coal Bearing Act and they can approach
the said Tribunal for appropriate relief. Accordingly,
the petitioners approached the Part-Time Tribunal
(PTT), C.B.A., Talcher by filing T.C. Case No. 16 of
2022. But while rejecting the petition, observation was
made by the Tribunal that the petitioners were to
approach the appropriate forum claiming their relief as
sought for.
Learned counsel for the petitioners placed the
order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
aforesaid case, i.e., Mathias Oram and others
(supra), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
observed that that the appellants or any other
affected parties to put forward their objections before
the High Court/Commission and such matters are to
be dealt with the High Court/Commission. Learned
counsel for the petitioners relied upon paragraphs-42
to 44 of the aforesaid judgment, which reads as
under:-
"42. By the provisions of the Second
Schedule to the R & R Act, 2013 all
displaced families losing a house in a rural
area are entitled to a constructed house in
terms of the Indira Awas Yojana
specifications. This benefit can also be
enjoyed by those who do not have a house
but were residing in the area for three
years prior to acquisition. In case a family
in an urban area opts not to take the house
offered, it will be entitled to one time
compensation for house construction which
will not be less than Rs.1,50,000/-. At the
same time, if any affected family in rural
area so prefers, the equivalent cost of
house may be offered in lieu of the
constructed house. The second benefit is
that if jobs are created through the project
which benefits from acquisition, the
concerned entity should provide suitable
training and skill development in the
required field and make provision for
employment at a rate not lower than the
minimum wages to at least one member of
the affected family or arrange for a job in
any other project. In lieu of this benefit, a
one-time benefit of Rs.5 lakhs per family is
to be made or annuity policies which would
be not less than Rs.2,000/- per month per
family for 20 years with appropriate
indexation in consumer price index for
agricultural labourers has to be made.
Furthermore, subsistence allowance for
displaced families for a comparative one-
year equivalent of Rs.3000/- per month is
to be provided. Additional transportation
cost for shifting and one time resettlement
allowance of Rs.50,000/- is payable.
43. The provisions of the R & R Act, 2013
which replaced the old Land Acquisition Act,
1894 have for the first time cast obligations
upon the State to ensure that resettlement
and rehabilitation is provided in addition to
compensation. These rehabilitation and
resettlement provisions relate not only to a
right to employment for at least one
member of the displaced family but also
other monetary and tangible benefits, such
as land for construction of houses, cash
assistance for construction; transportation
cost; provision for temporary displacement;
annuity and/or cash payment in lieu of
employment benefits, etc. Furthermore, by
provisions of the Third Schedule, elaborate
provisions for the kind of public amenities
which have to be provided, such as public
health benefits, schools, community
centres, roads and other basic necessities,
have been obligated. All these are in
furtherance of the displaced and the larger
social justice obligations cast upon the
State.
44. The R & R Act, 2013 by Section 108 also
clearly envisions that the benefits provided
by the new law are not to be applied
blindly. Wherever there are existing
provisions that are more beneficial or
provide better benefits to displaced persons,
such families and individuals have the
choice or option to prefer either such policy
or local law or the provisions of the R & R
Act. If one goes by the principle underlying
Section 108, clearly the benefits spelt out
under the R & R Policy 2006, appear to be
better, and more elaborate."
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the Claims Commission is not now functioning as
extension was not granted and, therefore this Court is
competent to hear the matter. Since there is no other
alternative remedy for the petitioners the present
petition has been filed.
Issue notice to the opposite parties on the
question of admission indicating therein that the
matter shall be disposed of at the stage of admission.
Learned counsel for the State accepts notice on
behalf of opp. party nos.1 and 5. Let extra copies of
the writ petition be served on the learned counsel for
the State by 16.05.2025.
Requisites for issuance of notice to the opposite
party nos.2 to 4 by speed post with proof of delivery
shall be filed by 16.05.2025.
Put up this matter in the week commencing
from 07.07.2025.
Counter, if any, to the writ petition be filed in
the meantime.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
( S.S. Mishra)
Judge
Ashok/Swarna
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 14-May-2025 18:48:51
