2024 (III) ILR-CUT-363
W.P.(C) NO. 31638 OF 2022
BIBOL TOPPO & ORS. Versus
STATE OF ODISHA (REVENUE & DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPT) & ORS.
(A)RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013 – Sections 2(2)(b), 41 – As per the Social Impact Assessment Report most of the people from three affected villages did not oppose the acquisition – Whether this fulfils the requirement of consent of 80% of the affected family as required U/s. 2(2)(b) of the Act? – Held, Yes.
(B) RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013 – Section 24-A – The Opp.Party No. 7 is the holder of mining lease over the concerned land – The Opp.Party is empowered to enter the land on which the lease has been granted and carry out the mining operation – Whether the Opp.Party No. 7 is liable to give compensation to the land owner? – Held, Yes – The Opp.Party No. 7 is duly entitled to get the surface right over the concerned land for having under taken to pay the compensation to the occupier as would be fixed by the State Government, which too owes the legal obligation in that regard.
(C) CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 – Order 1, Rule 8 r/w Section 11(i), 19(i) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013 r/w Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – The petitioners have failed to provide any material in support of the fact that they are the land losers – Whether the writ application filed in representative capacity is maintainable? – Held, No – The provisions contained under the Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code have not been compiled with as mandatorily required – So, the petitioners have no locus standi to initiate the instant proceeding before this Court by filing the writ application challenging the Acquisition Proceeding.
(D) INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES – Doctrine of Compliance – Discussed with reference to case laws.