NTPC LTD Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC) Limited, which is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and a Government of India Enterprise engaged in construction of super thermal power projects and generation of electricity in the interest of national power, has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order dtd. 28/12/2016 passed under Annexure-6, whereby the Collector and District Magistrate, Angul, by observing that opposite party no.4, being a major married son of Late Dwari Behera, has been rightly included in the SAP list, has directed that as opposite party no.4 has exercised job option for his son, the name of the nominee of opposite party no.4 may be sponsored to NTPC for giving employment under the R&R Scheme applicable to him.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that Late Dwari Behera of village Derang was the owner of the land measuring area of total Ac.2.37 decimal appertaining to khata nos.287 and 288 and plot nos.9462, 9463, 9464 and 9471. The said land was acquired by the State Government in the year 1991 for construction of Stage-II Ash Dyke of TSTPP, pursuant to the notification dtd. 23/4/1990 made under Sec. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Owing to such acquisition, Late Dwari Behera was declared as SAP No.A-307 and his other major married son Maheswar Behera was also declared as SAP No. B-123 for the purpose of grant of rehabilitation benefit as was prevalent then. Apart from receiving the land acquisition compensation of Rs.1,81,351.00 on 7/5/1992, the awardee Late Dwari Behera made a requisition in favour of his nominee son Jagdish Behera and Maheswar Behera made a requisition in favour of his nominee son Bibhuti Behera for giving employment in NTPC as per R&R Scheme. Considering the local grievance, survey was done by M/s. IMCO, an agency during the year 1996 to finalize SAP status of the persons whose land has been acquired for establishment of TSTPP of NTPC Ltd. Based on the survey report, the SAP List was finalized by the District Administration, Angul. Thereafter, decision was taken in different RAC and RPDAC meetings that no further addition would be made to the said finally drawn SAP List. In the said finally drawn SAP List the name of Prafulla Chandra Behera-opposite party no.4 was not included as R&R benefit has already been given to the family of Late Dwari Behera, the sole land oustee, based on the prevalent R&R Policy and on the basis of nomination made by the land oustees.

(3.) Mr. B.S. Tripathy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that the claim of opposite party no.4 to include in SAP List, after lapse of long years of its finalisation, which was done in 1996, is absolutely misconceived one. It is further contended that at the relevant point of time opposite party no.4 was a Government servant and was not residing in the village and, as such, he cannot be included in the SAP List. His further contention is that as per the clarification issued by the Govt. of Odisha, R&DM Department, vide letter no. 92388 dtd. 20/10/2010, the persons/families who were ordinarily not residing in or near the project area are not eligible for and shall not be enumerated as displaced/affected families for the purpose of R&R benefit. It is also contended that by the time the notification under Sec. 4(1) was issued opposite party No.4 was not a major married son. Without considering the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and the objection filed on its behalf, opposite party no.2 came to a conclusion that opposite party no.4, being a major married son of Late Dwari Behera, has been rightly included in the SAP List, and that there is no law or rule debarring a Government servant to avail R&R benefit, if he is a land oustee, and that as he has exercised job option for his son, the name of nominee of opposite party no.4 may be sponsored to NTPC, if not done already. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the opposite party no.4, after long lapse of 24 years, has raised his grievance for being included in the SAP List, and that too upon receipt of appropriate land acquisition compensation with R&R benefit, therefore, the order impugned, having been passed without application of mind, is liable to be quashed. In support of his contention, he has relied upon a decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Mohd. Aslam v. State of U.P and Ors, 2005 (2) AWC 1861, besides the decisions of the apex Court in the cases of Union of India v. Joginder Sharma, JT 2002 (7) SC 425, State of J and K and others v. Sajad Ahmed Mir, 2006 (5) SCC 766 and Butu Prasad Kumbhari and others v. SAIL, JT (1995) 3 SC 428.