Chaturbhuja Modi and Others vs State of Orissa and Others

S. Panda, J.—The Petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the opposite parties to pay compensation towards the compulsory nature of acquisition of their land.

The facts of the case are as follows :

Earlier the Petitioner had filed OJC No. 16695 of 2001 before this Court which was disposed of on 8.1.2002 with the following directions :

Without expressing any opinion regarding the merit of the Petitioner claim, we dispose of this writ petition with the observation that the Petitioner may make a representation to the Collector, Cuttack, who will pass necessary orders within four months from the date of filing of such representation.

It may be noted here that in the said writ petition, the Petitioners claimed that a land measuring Ac.0.250 decimals appertaining to Plot No. 35 (Part) of mouza Chaulianganj Cuttack Sadar, Unit 29 had been illegally used as a part of the National Highway without givihg any compensation to him. Pursuant to the above order, he filed a representation before the Collector, Cuttack on 24th January, 2002. He received a letter from the Office of the Collector on 3.3.2005 to appear before the Land Acquisition Officer (Civil), Cuttack on 7.3.2005 for verification of the name of the recorded tenant of plot No. 35, khata No. 158 of mouza Chauliaganj Cuttack Sadar, Unit No. 29 for the year 1948-49. Accordingly, he appeared. Thereafter the Collector, Cuttack after hearing the parties held that vide letter dated 16.12.2004 the Petitioner was asked to produce documents in support his claim before the Land Acquisition Officer (Civil), Cuttack. The Petitioner appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer on 21.12.2004 and submitted in writing that he had no document in support of his claim. He also admitted that only he came to know about the acquisition of the case land on perusal of order dated 22.4.2000 of the Tahasildar, Cuttack Sadar in Mutation Case No. 243 of 1999. The Office of the Collector, Cuttack vide letters dated 1.2.2002, 9.11.2004 and 24.11.2004 asked the National Highway Authority to submit the record relating to the acquisition in question, but the letter replied that the record was not available m their office. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Officer, Civil, Cuttack vide his letters dated 6.10.2004, 8.11.2004, 24.11.2004, etc made several correspondence with the Officer-in-charge, Record Room, Cuttack for thorough search of the relevant record in the Repord Room, Cuttack. After thorough search of the Record Room on 8.2.2005 it was intimated that the case record was not available as it was a year old case and that the case land was with regard to an area of Ac.0.250 decimals of Mouza-Baharbisinabar which was acquired for the construction of National Highway in the year 1948. There is no dispute that the land had already been acquired and after 53 years (emphasis supplied) one Chatrubhuja Modi and Ors. seeking a direction from this Court for compensation filed OJC No. 16695 of 2001 which was disposed of by this Court on 8.1.2002 with a direction to consider the representation of the Petitioner. The construction of National Highway was transparent and open for all. However, the owner of the land Chatrubhuja Modi and Ors. could know about it only after a long gap. On the above grounds, the Collector, Cuttack rejected the representation of the Petitioner on 11.4.2005 as it was a year old matter and the Petitioner was not able to produce any document in respect of his claim and they did not find any document from the Record Room.

Learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that due to non-availability of the records, the claim of the Petitioners should not have been rejected. The compulsory nature of acquisition of a land by the welfare State without support of any law is illegal. In view of the public purpose behind the acquisition, compensation should have been paid to the Petitioners. The public authority should not take technical plea of limitation to defeat the just claim of the Petitioners. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners cited a decision reported in AIR 1974 SC 730(Dilbagh Rai Jerry v. Union of India and Ors. ) wherein, while considering the dismissal of a railway employee and his backwages for the period between the date of dismissal and the date of reinstatement which was treated as leave due and other consequential benefits, the apex Court observed as follows :

It is not right for a welfare State like ours to be Janus-faced, and while formulating the humanist project of legal aid to the poor, contest the claims of poor employees under it pleading limitation and the like.

The above observation was made in the said judgment not on the merits of the case but on governmental disposition to the litigation. Therefore, we are of the view that the said decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Each case has to be considered on its own faces and circumstances.

In the present case, it is admitted that the National Highway had been constructed in the year 1948. It was an open construction and for the use of the general public openly. Therefore, it can safely be concluded that the said Highway is being used openly by everybody and its construction was to the knowledge of all. The Petitioners came to know about their right over the land used for construction of the National Highway in the year 1999 and moved his Court by way of filing a Writ Petition in OJC No. 16695 of 2001 and this Court without going into the merits of the said case disposed of the said writ petition on 8.1.2002 with a direction to the Collector, Cuttack to consider the representation of the Petitioner. Therefore, no right accrued to the Petitioners by virtue of the direction of this Court dated 8.1.2002.

So far as the acquisition of land is concerned, had the land been acquired for public purposes, the authority was to follow the provision of the Act and the owner of the land was to file his claim for compensation if not satisfied with the valuation made by the authorities within a stipulated time as provided in the Land Acquisition Act. In the case at hand, apart from the fact that a year old matter and also the records are not available in the record room and also the Petitioners were not able to produce any document before the authority in support of their claim. Since the Petitioners putforth their claim after 58 years, the Collector rightly rejected the representation filed by them.

Accordingly, we do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs.

I.M. Quddusi, ACJ.

I agree.