GURA MALLICK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State. Since counter affidavit has been filed in O. J. C. No. 6684 of 1994 and similar questions are raised, it is not necessary for the State Government to file counter in other cases. All the writ applications have been taken up together for disposal at the time of admission on consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties.

(2.) ALL these writ applications raise the common question of giving effect to the Rehabilitation Package to the displaced inhabitants of village Salachua in the district of Mayurbhanj. While acquiring lands under the Land Acquisition Act for the purpose of Sunei Dam, a Scheme had been prepared and it had been given out by the Government that 30 cents of homestead land and Ac. 6.00 of non -Irrigated land or Ac. 3.00 of irrigated land, as the case may be, shall be given to the families whose lands had been acquired. The entire village was submerged after the construction of the Dam on river Sunei. Subsequently, it was found that it was not possible for the Government to allot land to all the affected families. Accordingly, the Government afforded to pay money in lieu of allotment of such land. Dispute having arisen relating to the amount to be given in lieu of such allotment of land, series of cases had been filed in this Court by the villagers. One such case was decided by a Division Bench of this Court in O. J. C. No. 7614 of 1994 by judgment dated 24 -2 -1997, reported in, 83 (1997) C. L. T. 760 (Kruposindhu Parida and others v. State of Orissa and others). In the said writ application, counter had been filed wherein it had been indicated that the villagers had agreed to accept the compensation to be afforded to them. However, considering all the aspects, the Division Bench observed in paragraph -6 of the judgment : - -

(3.) LEARNED Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State has submitted that the petitioners having agreed to accept the amount offered by the Government cannot subsequently turn back and claim higher amount. It is further submitted that compensation payable under the Land Acquisition Act has already been paid and as such it is not open to the petitioners to claim amount at the market rate in lieu of the land compensation for which was paid to them. In short, be has submitted that the ratio of the earlier decision should not be applied to the present batch of cases.