LAWS(ORI)-1996-12-31

SUBAL KHATEI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS

Decided On December 06, 1996
Subal Khatei Appellant
V/S
State of Orissa and Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this writ application seeking for a direction to opposite party No. 3 to pay the awarded amount along with statutory benefits to the petitioner in connection with L.A. Case No. 8 of 1994 and for a further direction to refer the matter to the competent court under Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.

(2.) Land measuring 2.00 acres appertaining to plot No. 2107/3166, Khata No. 621/56 in mauza Andharua had been leased out to one Sangram Koshari Samantasinghar in W. Rs.Case No. 407 of 1974. The said lessee sold 1.00 acre of land to the petitioner by registered sale deed after obtaining permission from the concerned authority and thereafter petitioner is continuing in possession of the land purchased by him which has been mutated in his name in Khata No. 621/235, Plot No. 3166/3371 and accordingly separate record-of-right has been prepared in the name of the petitioner 8 as per Annexure-1. It seems that after the petitioner had purchased the land, Revision Case No. 218 of 1986 was initiated under Sec. 7-A(3) of the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act. The petitioner's application to be added as a party in the said proceeding was turned down and ultimately the lease in favour of the original lessee was cancelled. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Title Suit No. 44 of 1989 in the Court of the Munsif, Bhubaneswar, for declaration that the order passed in Revision Case No. 218 of 1986 was illegal and void and tor permanent injunction. The said suit was decreed by judgment dated 28-11-1992 as per Annexure-3. Subsequently, notification under Sec. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued in the year 1994 for acquisition of land 'or the purpose of Narajater Supply Scheme, Khurda. In the said notification a portion of the land belonging to the petitioner measuring Act 260 decimals was sought to be acquired. The petitioner made an application for reducing the area proposed to be acquired and the authorities concerned ultimately decided to acquire only Ac. 0. 145 decimals from the petitioner's land as per Annexure-4. In the said Land Acquisition Case No. 8 of 1994, notice under Sec. 9 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued to the petitioner and ultimately the Land Acquisition Collector passed an award in favour of the petitioner under Sec. 11 of the Act granting compensation of Rs. 64,815.00 and notice under Sec. 12(2) of the Act was issued to the petitioner, as evident from Annexure-6. It is asserted that though the petitioner wanted to receive the amount without prejudice to his right for higher compensation, the authorities did not pay the compensation amount to the petitioner. It is further asserted that the petitioner made several representations to opposite parties 2 and 3, the last such representation being dated 3-2-1996, for payment of the awarded amount as well as for referring the matter to the competent Court under Sec. 18 for determination of just compensation. Such representation has been annexed as Annexure-7. It is asserted that in spite of such repeated representations, the opposite parties have turned a deaf ear and neither the compensation has been paid nor the matter has been referred to the competent court for determination of just compensation.

(3.) By order dated 31-10-1996. which was passed in presence of the counsel for the State, it was directed that counter should be filed by 29th Nov., 1996. When the matter was taken up, the counsel appearing for the State sought for adjournment for filing counter specifically with reference to the assertion regarding Annexure-3, the judgment in Title Suit No. 44 of 1989. In course of hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that to the best of his knowledge, no appeal had been filed against the judgment in Title Suit No. 44 of 1989 and we have no reason to disbelieve such submission made at the Bar. The very fact that notice under Sec. 9 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued and award under Sec. 11 was made in the name of the petitioner fortifies the claim of the petitioner. Once the award has been made in favour of the petitioner, ordinarily it is reasonable to expect that his title as declared by the civil Court has been accepted by the opposite parties. In the aforesaid premises, we find no justifiable reason for the opposite parties not to disburse the awarded amount to the petitioner. We accordingly direct opposite party No. 3 to disburse the awarded amount to the petitioner along with all permissible statutory benefits within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order.