LAXMAN CHANDRA DAS Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 29 petitioners have assailed the acquisition of their land made by the Government of Orissa by notification dated 25 -7 -1983. It is alleged in the writ application that though the State Government took recourse to the emergency power under Sub -sections (1) and (4) of Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act and dispensed with the procedure laid down under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), but in fact there never existed any urgency which is apparent from the fact that the declaration under Section 6 was made on 24 -7 -1986 and, therefore, the entire acquisition proceeding is vitiated. These is no dispute with the fact that the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 25 -7 -1983 as per Annexure -2 and notification under Section 17 (1) and (4) of the Act dispensing with hearing of the objections as provided under Section 5A of the Act was issued on 3 -8 -1983 as per Annexure -5. Declaration under Section 6 was made and published on 29 -7 -1986 as would appear from Annexure -A to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State. The petitioner's case in the writ application is that they do not possess any other house site within the municipal limits of Cuttack and this was the only piece of land they had purchased for building their houses with all their savings of life and the said lands have been acquired by the State as stated earlier. Apart from challenging the notification of acquisition, the petitioners have also made an alternative prayer that each one of the petitioners may be given a suitable plot of land by the Cuttack Development Authority for whom the land in question had been acquired so that they can build their houses and achieve their desire of having their own houses in the city of Cuttack.

(2.) THE State has filed a counter -affidavit denying the allegations that there was no urgency for the acquisition in question. It has been indicated that on account of congestion in the city of Cuttack when the proposal of establishing a new township was launched, the acquisition proceeding was initiated by taking recourse to the emergency provision contained in Section 17 of the Act and in fact the possession has been taken of the acquired law. The compensation amount has not been paid to the petitioners as the petitioners were not the recorded owners of the land. It has been further averred that the amount in question has been further deposited as revenue deposit. Admittedly one Naba Sethi was the recorded owner of the disputed land and he had alienated the property in favour of one Baikunthanath Patnaik. The petitioners are the purchasers from said Baikunthanath Patnaik. Therefore, we are prepared to accept the said stand of the State that compensation amount for the acquired land has not been paid to the petitioners as they had not been recorded as recorded owners. But their claim of purchase from Baikunthnath Patnaik who in turn had purchased from Naba Sethi has not been refuted in the counter -affidavit and, therefore, the petitioners must be held to be the owners of the disputed land and have a right to approach this Court assailing the legality of the acquisition in question.

(3.) WHILE we decline to interfere with the acquisition in question, we cannot lose sight of the fact that these petitioners had purchased small pieces of land between one gunth to 3 gunths with the hope that they would build their houses and reside therein and that hope of theirs has been shattered by the acquisition in question. Just like the State has an obligation to provide housing accommodation to the inhabitants of Cuttack city and with that object the State ventured to set up a new city at Bidanasi and acquire vast tract of lands some of which belong to several citizens, the State also owes an obligation to see the settlement of the poor petitioners who had purchased small pieces of land for having their shage and have been totally disappointed by the acquisition in question. In this context an alternative prayer of the petitioners deserves consideration. In the Supreme Court decision referred for to supra, where the land had been acquired for Meerut Development Authority, their Lordships of the Supreme Court had also observed that Meerut Development Authority for whose benefit the land in question had been acquired should try to provide a house site of a reasonable size on reasonable terms to the expropriated persons who have no houses or shop buildings in the urban area in question. This observation made by their Lordships of the Supreme Court would equally apply with full force to the facts and circumstances of the present case. According to the learned counsel for the Cuttack Development Authority, the authority is prepared to allot house sites to the petitioners if directions are given. But in view of the huge expenses incurred by the CDA in developing the land in question, the CDA is not in a position to allot lands at a price other than the prevalent market price as fixed by the CDA for the allottees. Mr. Mohanty appearing for the petitioners, on the other hand, contends that if the lands are allotted to the petitioners at the prevalent market price then it would tantamount to no allotment at all since the petitioners do not have the financial capacity to purchase the land at the prevalent market price. The compensation which the petitioners in law would derive it the value of the land as it stood on 27 -7 -1983 the date on which notification was issued under Section 4 of the Act and that compensation amount certainly would not be sufficient for any of the petitioners to purchase even the smallest category of land at the prevalent market price.