Purna Chandra Rath vs State of Orissa and Others

Indrajit Mahanty, J.—In this writ application the Petitioner-Purna Chandra Rath has sought for direction to the Opp. Parties to include his name as a "land oustee" & to extend the benefits under the "Rehabilitation Scheme" to him.

In paragraph-5 of the writ application, the Petitioner has asserted that his name was not mentioned in the list of land oustees prepared by the Government, for which reasons he made a representation to Opp. Party No. 3-Land Acquisition Officer, Angul. It is further asserted by the Petitioner that Opp. Party No. 3 caused an inquiry & in course of such inquiry; the land oustee had been called upon to nominate a person from his family who would be entitled to receive the benefits under the scheme. Accordingly, the land oustee had nominated her daughter "Sasmita Rath" as her nominee to receive the benefits under the said scheme.

In the counter affidavit filed by the Land Acquisition Officer (O.P. No. 3), it is asserted that an area of Ac. 0.49 decimal of land under holding No. 1073, plot No. 4365 in village Kangula has been acquired by IDCO for setting up of a plant called I.A.P.L. It was further asserted by the Land Acquisition Officer in his counter that the name of the Petitioner has not been mentioned as an awardee pertaining to holding No. 1073. Insofar as this holding is concerned the same was rewarded in the name of Brajamohan Rath, Pravat Kumar Rath, Subash Kumar Rath, Ganeswar Rath, son of Bholeswar Rath of Bentapur & a copy of the award pertaining to the said holding has been annexed as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. The Land Acquisition Officer had carried out an inquiry in which it was specifically stated that there was no Land Acquisition Officer for Angul district in the year 1990. It was further asserted in paragraph-4 of the counter affidavit that the Petitioner claimed to be the adopted son of Smt. Kuntala Rath, but could not produce the adoption deed at the time of objection hearing for which no award has been passed in his favour.

Considering the submissions as noted hereinabove since the Petitioner was a claimant before the Land Acquisition Officer, Dhenkanal in which award was passed pertaining to the holding No. 1073 & due to inability on the part of the Petitioner to produce any evidence of the adoption deed, award has been passed in favour of the recorded owner of such land.

In view of the aforesaid fact, we are of the view that, if the Petitioner has any grievance for non-recognition of his adoption deed and/or for awarding the compensation in favour of persons who were otherwise entitled to compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, the same cannot be raised in the present petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed with liberty to the Petitioner to pursue his remedy either under the Land Acquisition Act or before the Civil Court, as he may so be advised.