DALIMBA KUMARI PANDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application the petitioner namely, Miss Dalimba Panda has sought for quashing of the impugned order dated 2.8.2003 under Annexure -6 by which the Director, Rehabilitation and Resettlement of the Government of Orissa Water Resources Department rejected the petitioners application for grant of rehabilitation assistance as a displaced person and consequentially prayed for a direction to the opposite parties to pay compensation/rehabilitation and resettlement benefit.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that she is an unmarried, old, sick and infirm lady and was residing in a house constructed by her late father Radhakrushna Panda over Plot No.223, Khata No.40 at village Landiguda, District -Koraput. The petitioner asserted that in the year 1984 Landiguda was submerged due to construction of the Upper Kolab Reservoir Project and notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published. It is further asserted that although various representations were made by the petitioner from time to time for release of compensation/rehabilitation and resettlement benefit, there was complete inaction on the part of the opposite parties and it was only on 2.10.2002 in pursuance of the order of the Land Acquisition and Resettlement Officer of Upper Kolab Hydro Electric Project that an enquiry was conducted by the Revenue Inspector and the report was submitted, to the effect that the petitioner was a resident of village Landiguda and she was eligible to receive rehabilitation and resettlement benefit. It appears that although the Land Acquisition and Resettlement Officer forwarded the application of the petitioner along with his recommendation to the Director, R and R of the Water Resources Department, the same came to be rejected on 2.8.2003 by the impugned order under Annexure -6 to the writ application.

(3.) MR . Mohapatra, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State placed reliance upon the counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party No.3, i.e., the Land Acquisition and Resettlement Officer and submitted that in accordance with the policy of the Government, since the brother of the petitioner namely, Harekrushna Panda had been given the rehabilitation assistance, therefore the petitioner being an unmarried sister, payment to Harekrushna Panda as a displaced person, would include the petitioner being a member of his displaced family. Learned counsel further submitted that the representation of the petitioner dated 29.5.1990 was enquired into and the same was verified with the records and it was found that neither the petitioner had received compensation for submergence of her house nor her name finds place in the displaced families enumeration list prepared on 25.5.1984. He further asserted that the petitioner never filed any objection petition claiming rehabilitation assistance in response to the preparation of a list of displaced families in the village Landiguda, even though objection had been invited. In this regard learned counsel for the State submitted that the term "displaced family" as defined in the aforesaid Policy includes such displaced person and his or her spouse, minor son(s), unmarried daughter(s), minor brother(s) of sister(s), father and mother and other members residing with him and depending on him for their livelihood. Learned State counsel submitted that since the father of the petitioner late Radhakrushna Panda is no more, her brother Harekrushna Panda has been paid rehabilitation assistance for and on behalf of his displaced family, which includes his sister, the present petitioner. Accordingly the learned counsel for the State submitted that the writ petition merits no further consideration.