GYANINDRA KUMAR NAIK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, who are land oustees, challenge the notification published under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") respectively for acquisition of Ac.1188.41 of land of village Darlipali under Lefripada Tahasil in the district of Sundargarh for construction of Super Thermal Power Project of National Thermal Power Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the NTPC"), as illegal, non est and void.

(2.) BEREFT of unnecessary details, the short facts of the case of the petitioners are that the Government of Orissa in its Revenue & Disaster Management Department issued a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act on 10.3.2010 for acquisition of Ac.1188.41 of land for construction of Super Thermal Power Project of NTPC. Petitioner No.1 through his lawyer collected information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "the RTI Act") regarding notification published under Section 4(1) of the Act in the Orissa Gazette. As per letter No.16348 dated 9.4.2012, the Joint Secretary to Government informed that no notification bearing No.LA(C) 189/2010 (Sundargarh) 10675/RDM dtd.10.3.2010 has been published in the Orissa Gazette. It is further stated that as per Constitution Order 109 - Scheduled Areas (States of Bihar, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Orissa) Order, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as "the Scheduled Order") dtd. 31.12.1977, Sundargarh District in the State of Orissa comes under scheduled areas. Village Darlipali and Raidihi under Lefripada Tahasil is within the Sundargarh district. The Sarpanch, Darlipali Gram Panchayat issued notice on 10.11.2010 to all voters of Darlipali Gram Panchayat for holding a general Gram Sabha on 24.11.2010 at 11 A.M regarding land acquisition for NTPC Thermal Power Project. On 24.11.2010, the Gram Sabha was adjourned due to want of quorum. On 26.11.2010, another notice was issued by the Sarpanch, Darlipali to hold Gram Sabha on 28.11.2010. It is stated that in the notice the date is over written as 25.11.2010, whereas the Sarpanch signed the notice on 26.11.2010. Since the resolution dated 28.11.2010 of the Gram Sabha was made without proper notice, the same is void and non est. It is further stated that by letter no.610 dated 26.5.2011, the Public Information Officer -cum - District Panchayat Officer, Sundargarh (hereinafter referred to as "the PIO") informed the petitioner no.1 that the adjourned Gram Sabha held on 28.11.2010 is illegal. But then, by another letter no.639 dated 31.5.2011, the PIO intimated that there is some clerical error in the information supplied to the petitioner no.1 in his earlier letter and sent the revised information along with the said letter. As per letter no.1219 dated 10.10.2011, the PIO submitted inquiry report dated 7.10.2011 to the Collector, Sundargarh. In the said report, he categorically stated that the Gram Sabha held on 28.11.2010 cannot be treated as a Gram Sabha under the Orissa Gram Panchayats Act and Rules. Further case of the petitioners is that as per Section 4(1) of the Act, the Government have not issued the advertisement No.VII -77 dtd. 10.3.2010 in Utkal Mail published on 8.4.2011 from Rourkela. The advertisement is a fake one. No notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the newspaper. When the villagers objected to the public hearing before issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the NTPC officials distributed the fake Utkal Mail Oriya Newspaper on 8.4.2011 with fake notification. Thereafter, they filed WP(C) No.23841 of 2011 before this Court. In the said case, notice had been issued to the opposite parties. But then, the petitioners along with others submitted objection under Section 5A(1) of the Act before the Collector, Sundargarh. The Collector did not consider the point raised by them. Furthermore, declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act was issued on 29.2.2012, i.e., after lapse of one year. In view of the same, the declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act is also void and non est.

(3.) OPPOSITE party no.5 has filed a counter affidavit contending, inter alia, that the date "10.3.2010" appearing in the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act is a typographical mistake. The same is "10.3.2011". The notification was published in the Orissa Gazette No.603 dated 24.3.2011, vide Annexure -F/7. The substance of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the locality on 25.3.2011 in the presence of five witnesses, vide Annexure G/7. Thereafter, the notification was published in the local dailies, "Prajatantra" and "the Utkal Mail" on 7.4.2011 and 8.4.2011, vide Annexures H/7 and I/7 respectively. The minor discrepancy does not vitiate the land acquisition process. Furthermore, pursuant to the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, several objections were received within the statutory period of thirty days. The objectors did not raise any grievance relating to acquisition of their land. They demanded compensation amount, employment, rehabilitation, provision for free medical facilities, establishment of medical college, engineering college and hospital, acquisition of entire lands instead of part thereof. They also demanded free electricity and water. Except petitioner no.1, none of the petitioners had made any objection within the statutory period. Petitioner no.1 had also not raised any grievance relating to acquisition of the land, save and except, to fulfil the demands. It is further stated that on 27.10.2011, petitioner nos.1 and