Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1090 (ORI)

Ajaya Swain v. State of Orissa

2016-11-11

SANJU PANDA, SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

body2016
JUDGMENT : S.N. Prasad, J. This writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the opposite parties to quash the L.A. Case No. 8 of 2007 and impugned notice No.42079 dated 29.4.2010. 2. Brief facts of the case of the petitioners are belong to Gram Panchayat area of village Bijepur, P.S.-Ataranga, Dist.-Puri and the land in question belongs to their Kotha Ghara and the land in question was acquired for the purpose of construction of road which were protested by the villagers but without caring the same, the opposite parties had started a land acquisition proceeding to acquire the land and without giving any notice to them, those who are the recorded tenants of the land in question has served a notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 calling upon the petitioners to receive the compensation amount to which the petitioners have denied. The further case of the petitioners is that the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act has never been published in any News Paper and also never been served upon them, so notice issued under Section 12(2) of the L.A. Act is highly illegal and in the light of these circumstances, this instant writ petition has been filed. 3. The opposite party-State has appeared and filed detail counter affidavit inter alia stating therein that the land was acquired for construction of road to village-Chhatiana on the basis of the resolution having been taken in the Saripur Grama Panchayat meeting held on 27.4.2007. Thereafter a notification under Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act was issued but none of the villagers have made any objection under the provision of Section 5(A) of the L.A. Act. General notice was published under Section 9(1) of the L.A. Act in the locality on 21.12.2009. Notice under Section 9(2)(3)(4) of the L.A. Act was also sent to the recorded tenants through process server of the office of the opposite party no.3, since all recorded tenants are dead, the process server requested the legal heirs/family members to receive notice but none of them had received. Notice under Section 9(2)(3)(4) of the L.A. Act was also sent to the recorded tenants through process server of the office of the opposite party no.3, since all recorded tenants are dead, the process server requested the legal heirs/family members to receive notice but none of them had received. The process server intimated this fact in writing and as such the Tahasildar concerned was requested the opposite party no.3 to provide the list of successors of the recorded tenants and on receipt of the legal heirs report of the Tahasildar, Astaranga the award under Section 11 was passed by the L.A. Collector basing on the same report and thereafter notice under Section 12(2) of the L.A. Act was sent to them. 4. After acquisition of the land, the compensation amount has been deposited in Civil Deposit under Govt. receipt which is ready for its payment. The possession has also been handed over to the Panchayat Samiti. 5. In such a situation, since the land in question has been acquired for the public purpose by following the statutory provision, the relief sought for by the petitioners is not fit to be entertained, otherwise the people in general will suffer and the provision of the statute will be frustrated. Counter affidavit has been filed way back on 10.2.2011 but no rebuttal reply has been filed. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 6. The fact which is not in dispute is that part of the land in the area in question was acquired by the Government by issuance of notice under Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act, 1894. No protest has been filed under Section 5(A) of the L.A. Act. The Government thereafter has made declaration under the provision of Section 6(1) of the L.A. Act. Due notice has been issued under Section 9(1) of the L.A. Act and thereafter award has been passed under Section 11 of the Act, 1894. 7. On the basis of these averments made in the counter affidavit which has not been rebutted since no rejoinder has been filed, it appears that the statutory provision has been followed in the instant case before making acquisition of the land in question which is for public purpose i.e., construction of road. 7. On the basis of these averments made in the counter affidavit which has not been rebutted since no rejoinder has been filed, it appears that the statutory provision has been followed in the instant case before making acquisition of the land in question which is for public purpose i.e., construction of road. The possession of the land has been taken over and handed over to the Panchayat Samiti for completion of the work in question. The amount of compensation has been offered to be paid to the legal heirs of the original recorded tenants but since nobody had turned up, hence the same has been deposited in the Court which is ready for its payment. 8. After going through the material available on record, it is evident that the procedure for acquisition of land has been followed which is for the public purpose, the possession has been taken over and during the relevant time no objection has been filed under Section 5(A) of the L.A. Act, 1894, as such it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by the opposite parties in making acquisition of the land in question. 9. Taking into consideration all these aspects of the matter, we are of the considered view that at this stage, the land acquisition proceeding pertaining to the land in question cannot be quashed. Accordingly, we decline to interfere with the same, in the result the writ petition stands dismissed.