At, High Court of Orissa
By, THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. V. GOPALA GOWDA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE INDRAJEET MAHANTY
For the Petitioners: G. Mukherjee, P. Mukherjee, S. Patnaik, J. Rath & M.K. Mazumdar, Advocates. For the Opposite Parties: Government Advocate, B.N. Rath, J.N. Rath, S. Pattnaik, M.K. Panda, P.S. Samantra, S.B. Mohanty P.R. Sahoo, M.K. Singh Deo & S.K. Jethy, Advocates.
INDRAJIT MAHANTY., J:
1. In this writ application Petitioner No. 1 claims to be the son of Opp. Party No.6-Smt. Malli Dibya, Petitioner No.2 claims to be the grand son of said Opp. Party No.6 as well as son of Abhaya Charan Rath & Petitioner No.3 claims to be the grand-daughter of Opp. Party No.6 & daughter of one Nimai Charan Rath. The prayer made in the present writ application is to direct the Opp. Parties to classify the Petitioners as the 'nominees' of the land oustees & consequently grant employment to them by modifying the rehabilitation scheme of International Aluminium Product Limited.
2. It is asserted by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that all the three Petitioners stand as the recorded owners of land from which a portion of the land was acquired for the purpose of setting up of M/s International Aluminium Product Limited-Opp. Party No.4, later amalgamated with National Aluminium Company Limited (NALCO)Opp. Party No.5. It was further asserted that Ac. 0.4 decimal of land under holding No.1787/148 in the village Bentapur, District Angul was acquired from the Petitioners. It is also stated that the Opp. Parties mischievously showed the Opp. Party No.6-Smt. Malli Dibya as the oustee in respect of the land-in-question & this was deliberately done to avoid rehabilitation benefits to three families in whose name the land actually stood recorded. He further asserted that Opp. Party No.6-Smt. Malli Dibya being an illiterate lady accepted the compensation awarded in her favour & since the parents of the Petitioners were residing at Angul for earning their livelihood, fraud had been played upon them.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed by Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, the Land Acquisition Officer, Angul. In paragraph-6 thereof, it was asserted by the Land Acquisition Officer that an area of Ac. 0.48 decimal of land in village Kangula under Holding No.1721, Plot No.4364 had been acquired by IDCO for International Aluminium Product Limited plant, which stood recorded in the name of Smt. Malli Rath, W/o Kalandi Charan Rath-Opp. Party No.6. At the time of passing of the award, Opp. Party No.6 was alive & she had duly received the compensation as awarded. It was further mentioned in the said counter affidavit that Smt. Malli Rath had nominated one of her grandsons, namely Asutosh Rath as her nominee for the purpose of employment. As Asutosh Rath was not found to be a member of her 'family' as defined under the Rehabilitation Scheme formulated by I.A.P.L., therefore such nomination by Opp. Party No.6-Smt. Malli . Rath was not found acceptable. Accordingly, it is submitted by the Land Acquisition Officer that the- Petitioners are neither the awardees nor the nominees of Opp. Party No.6-Smt. Malli Rath who was the recorded owner of the land &, therefore, the Petitioners are not entitled for any compensation & for employment under the rehabilitation scheme.
4. Considering the aforesaid submissions made by the Learned Counsel for the parties & the facts emanated therefrom, it is clear that there is a dispute as to whose name the land-in-question was recorded, whereas the Petitioner asserted that they were the recorded owners of the land-in-question, the Land Acquisition Officer in his counter has stated that at the relevant time the land stood recorded in the name of Smt. Malli Rath-Opp. Party No.6. Apart from this disputed question of fact, we find from the counter affidavit that Smt. Malli Rath, the awardee had nominated one of her grand children, namely, Sri Asutosh Rath to be considered for employment under the I.A.P.L. rehabilitation package. But since the grandson did not come within the definition of the terms ‘Family’ as contemplated under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme, the said Asutosh Rath&
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
rsquo;s nomination was found to be unacceptable. 5. In the present case since disputed questions of fact relating to title of the property have arisen, this Court cannot exercise its writ jurisdiction in the matter. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed with the liberty to the Petitioner to seek appropriate remedy before the Civil Court and/or under the Land Acquisition Act, if so advised.