W.P.(C) No.23848 of 2022 Page 1 of 28

ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.23848 of 2022

CNR NO.ODHC010613912022

In the matter of an Application under Articles 226 & 227

of the Constitution of India, 1950.

***

Fakira Nag @ Luha

Aged about 43 years

Son of Late Ram Kumar Nag

At: Khagasabahal

P.O.: Barapurugia

P.S.: Balangir Sadar

District: Balangir. … Petitioner

-VERSUS-

1. State of Odisha

Represented through

The Secretary

Water Resources Department

Government of Odisha

Secretariat Building, Bhubaneswar

District: Khordha.

2. Director, Resettlement & Rehabilitation

Government of Odisha

Bhubaneswar

District: Khordha

3. Collector, Balangir

At/P.O./P.S.: Balangir

District: Balangir. WP(C)/23848/2022

ODHC010613912022

2026:OHC:17-DB

W.P.(C) No.23848 of 2022 Page 2 of 28

4. Special Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation

and Resettlement Officer

Lower Suktel Irrigation Project

Balangir.

5. Project Director

LSIP, Balangir

At/P.O./P.S.: Balangir

District Balangir.

6. The Executive Engineer

Lower Suktel RRC & B Division

At/P.O./P.S.: Balangir

District: Balangir.

7. The Superintending Engineer

Lower Suktel RRC & B Division

At/P.O./P.S.: Balangir

District: Balangir. … Opposite Parties.

Advocates appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner : Mr. Lalit Sahu,

Advocate

For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Satyabrata Mohanty,

Additional Government Advocate

P R E S E N T:

HONOURABLE JUSTICE

MR. MANASH RANJAN PATHAK

AND

HONOURABLE JUSTICE

MR. MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

Date of Hearing : 22.07.2026 :: Date of Judgment : 10.08.2026

W.P.(C) No.23848 of 2022 Page 3 of 28

JUDGMENT

MURAHARI SRI RAMAN, J.—

The petitioner, a displaced person in acquisition

proceeding in Village: Khagasabahal in the district of

Balangir, beseeching to challenge the Order No.1856,

dated 06.08.2022 passed by the Superintending

Engineer, Lower Suktel RRC & B Division, Balangir

(Annexure-7)— holding him not eligible for allotment of

homestead land and thereby rejecting his claim— craves

for exercise of power conferred on this Court under the

provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of

India for grant of following relief(s):

“It is, therefore, prayed that the Hon‟ble Court may

graciously be pleased to admit the writ application, issue

notice rule nisi in the nature of writ of mandamus or any

other writ/writs as deemed fit and proper, calling upon

the opposite parties to quash the order / Memo No.1856,

dated 06.08.2022 vide Annexure-7 and to direct the

opposite party No.6 to provide the homestead land to the

petitioner in Block-C Larkipali and Sadeipali

Rehabilitation Colony;

And for which act of kindness, the petitioner shall, as in

duty bound, ever pray.”

Facts:

2. The petitioner was in possession of ancestral homestead

lands bearing Plot No.423, 424 and 425 (kisam: Ghara)

W.P.(C) No.23848 of 2022 Page 4 of 28

in Khata No.9; and Plot No.477/687 (kisam: Bahalapani

dui) and Plot No.476/688 (kisam: Ata Mamuli) in Khata

No.84/12, which were acquired in connection with the

Lower Suktel Irrigation Project by the Government of

Odisha in Water Resources Department.

2.1. In terms of the Odisha Resettlement and Rehabilitation

Policy, 2006

1 (for short, “ORRP”) a possession notice was

issued to the petitioner. The petitioner claiming to be

displaced person was selected and found eligible to be

allotted with Ac.0.10dec of homestead land vide Memo

No.1331, dated 23.09.2017 (Serial No.15) and

accordingly vacated the homestead land and agricultural

land, which were submerged on account of Lower Suktel

Irrigation Project.

2.2. The petitioner, being not extended the benefits, as due

and entitled, made representations before the authority

concerned, which turned out to be fruitless. This gave

rise to filing of writ petition being W.P.(C) No.15542 of

2022, which came to be disposed of vide Order dated

04.07.2022 with an observation that the Executive

Engineer, Lower Suktel RRC&B Division, Balangir would

take a decision on the representation. Accordingly, the

Superintending Engineer, Lower Suktel RRC&B Division,

1

Vide Government of Odisha in Revenue Department Resolution No.18040 —

R&REH-1/06/R., 14.05.2006, published in Odisha Gazette, Extraordinary

No.651, dated 15.05.2006.

W.P.(C) No.23848 of 2022 Page 5 of 28

Balangir considered the representation and passed the

following order:

“***

Whereas a report on the justification regarding allotment

of Homestead land to the petitioner was called for from

the Project Director (R&R), LSIP, Balangir and clarification

was received from the Project Director (R&R), LSIP,

Balangir vide his Letter No.1078, dated 30.07.2022

which speaks that the petitioner Sri Fakir Nag @ Luha

has not preferred for the Homestead land during

household survey. The Project Director (R&R), LSIP,

Balangir has also submitted a copy of the form in

which the Displaced Family has to exercise option

for Homestead land during household survey, this

evident that the petitioner appears to be ineligible

for homestead land.

In such circumstance and basing on the report of the

Project Director (R&R), LSIP, Balangir, the petitioner‟s

claim for Homestead land at this stage is not at all

justified.”

2.3. The rejection of entitlement to the homestead land as

claimed to be eligible by the petitioner gave rise to filing

of this writ petition.

Counter affidavit of the opposite parties:

3. A counter affidavit dated 15.11.2022, sworn to by the

Superintending Engineer, Lower Suktel Rehabilitation,

Resettlement, Camps and Building Division, Balangir,

has come to be filed on 18.11.2022.

W.P.(C) No.23848 of 2022 Page 6 of 28

3.1. It is asserted by the opposite parties that Letter No.1331

dated 23.09.2017 of the Executive Engineer, Lower

Suktel Rehabilitation, Resettlement, Camps and

Building Division, Balangir as communicated to the

Special Land Acquisition Officer, Lower Suktel Project,

Balangir along with the forms maintained during the

household survey, called the Household Interview

Schedule, with respect to nineteen displaced families

including the petitioner reveals that they exercised their

option as required under the Household Interview

Schedule (Annexure-B/7 enclosed with counter affidavit)

relating to benefits in connection with Resettlement and

Rehabilitation. It is stated that, the homestead lands

qua the Displaced Families are allotted through Plot

Allotment Committee Chaired by the Additional District

Magistrate, Balangir and therefore, the Executive

Engineer, Lower Suktel Rehabilitation, Resettlement,

Camp and Building Division, Balangir was not the

competent authority to allot the plots to the Displaced

Families.

3.2. This apart, it is asserted that the petitioner exercised his

option and marked as “NO” as against relevant column

meant for disclosure under the heading “Homestead

within the Rehabilitation Colony” in the Household

Interview Schedule.

W.P.(C) No.23848 of 2022 Page 7 of 28

3.3. In terms of Clause III: Type C: Water Resources/

National Parks and Sanctuary Rehabilitation Package for

Displaced Family (DF) of Paragraph 9 (Rehabilitation

Assistance) of the ORRP, 2006 the Displaced Families of

hilly submerged villages who have opted for homestead

by indicating “YES”, would be given 0.10 Acre

homestead land within rehabilitation habitat or

Rs.50,000/- to each displaced family opting for self-

relocation elsewhere or at the rate decided by the

Government from time to time. However, in terms of III(c)

of said Type C of Paragraph 9, each Displaced Family

belonging to Scheduled Tribe category would be provided

two-and-a-half acres of irrigated agricultural land, or five

acres of non-irrigated agricultural land; nevertheless,

each Displaced Family belonging to all other categories

would be provided two acres of irrigated agricultural

land or four acres of non-irrigated agricultural land.

However, it is provided that in case of non-availability of

land, cash equivalent would be provided at the rate of

Rs.1,00,000/- per acre of irrigated land and Rs.50,000/-

per acre of non-irrigated land, including the cost of

reclamation or at the rate decided by the Government

from time to time.

3.4. Opposing strongly it is stated that as the petitioner did

not opt for homestead land in the Rehabilitation and

Resettlement Colony, allotment of land to him for

W.P.(C) No.23848 of 2022 Page 8 of 28

homestead purpose does not arise. The determination

has been made on the basis of cash in lieu of homestead

(Annexure-4 to the writ petition).

Hearing:

4. The pleadings being completed, this matter along with

other four cases was listed for analogous hearing and

counsel for both the sides advanced arguments.

4.1. Patiently heard Sri Lalit Sahu, learned Advocate for the

petitioner and Sri Satyabrata Mohanty, learned

Additional Government Advocate for the opposite

parties.

4.2. Upon hearing, the matter stood reserved for preparation

and delivery of Judgment/order.

Arguments advanced by the counsel representing

respective parties:

5. Sri Lalit Sahu, learned Advocate submitted that by

manipulating the Household Interview Schedule, the

opposite parties have changed the option exercised by

the petitioner from “Yes” to “No”. Ground of mala fide

against the authorities-opposite parties is sought to be

emphasised upon by the learned counsel.

5.1. Stemming on the amended ORRP, 2006 in the year

2017, the counsel for the petitioner has submitted that

W.P.(C) No.23848 of 2022 Page 9 of 28

the opposite parties having not followed the mandate in

Paragraph 8 dealing with “ Resettlement and

Rehabilitation Plan” thereof, the entire Household

Interview Schedule is vitiated and cannot be the basis

for rejection of the claim of the petitioner.

5.2. It is submitted that the cases tagged to the instant writ

petition are similar in nature and arise out of the

present context, i.e., land acquisition for Lower Suktel

Irrigation Project and relate to the Village:

Khagasabahal. It is conceded that the decision rendered

in the present matter would govern the rest of the cases

tagged

2 for analogous hearing.

6. Refuting the contention of Sri Lalit Sahu, learned

Advocate for the petitioner, Sri Satyabrata Mohanty,

learned Advocate for the opposite parties would submit

that there is no specific allegation against any particular

authority or person to demonstrate that there was

“manipulation” in the Household Interview Schedule.

Scurrilous attack on the authority concerned on

specious plea of mala fide without bringing on record

substance thereof cannot be enquired into. Having

exercised his option as “No” as against column meant for

filling up “Homestead within the Rehabilitation Colony”,

the petitioner at this distance of time cannot turn round

2

Cases listed for analogous hearing are:

W.P.(C) No.27585 of 2022; W.P.(C) No.27586 of 2022; W.P.(C) No.27588 of 2022;

and W.P.(C) No.27589 of 2022.

W.P.(C) No.23848 of 2022 Page 10 of 28

to take a stance contrary to what was enumerated in the

said Schedule.

6.1. Sri Satyabrata Mohanty, learned Additional Government

Advocate emphatically urged that in the Rehabilitation

and Periphery Development Advisory Committee

(RPDAC) Meeting held on 19.05.2018

3, the fact whether

homestead land can be provided to the petitioner and

other similarly situated displaced families having

exercised option to receive cash in lieu of homestead was

discussed vide Proposal No.6. By way of resolution a

decision was taken in said RPDAC Meeting that some of

displaced families of the submerged villages of Lower

Suktel Irrigation Project, Balangir, who had exercised

option for cash in lieu of homestead land years back

have now applied for allotment of homestead land,

nonetheless, as the Displaced Families of six villages

have already received the cash in lieu of the homestead

land, it was not possible now to provide homestead land.

As the compensation amount has been determined and

sanctioned in favour of the petitioner and other similar

circumstanced families, at this belated stage the

petitioner, individually, cannot be provided with

homestead. It is, therefore, submitted that the

representation would not save the period of delay.

3

See Order dated 20.06.2024 passed in Debananda Dharua Vrs. State of Odisha

and Others, W.P.(C) No.27588 of 2022 , which is tagged to this case for

analogous hearing.

W.P.(C) No.23848 of 2022 Page 11 of 28

Prolonged lapse of time legally bars that family from

coming forward to object, reverse their choice, and set

up demand for allotment of homestead land.

6.2. It is further discernible from the affidavit filed by the

petitioner in other cases tagged to this matter for

analogous hearing, e.g., W.P.(C) No.27589 of 2022:

Hemanta Dharua Vrs. State of Odisha, that he has not

received Displaced Family Compensation. However, such

affidavit has not clarified that he being family member of

Narendra Dharua, such amount in lieu of homestead in

view of exercise of option has been received by his

father/predecessor-in-interest or any other family

member. To permit displaced families, more particularly

children of the predecessor-in-interest of land subjected

to acquisition to reopen settled determination of

compensation amount in lieu of homestead years later

would severely destabilize public administration and

obstruct development projects. Long delays preclude

belated challenges to executed land acquisition

sanctions.

6.3. However, the amount so sanctioned is reflected in the

document placed at Annexure-4 of the writ petition.

Therefore, the petitioner in the present writ petition and

other writ petitioners in the cases tagged to this case are

not entitled to homestead land, more so when benefit

has been extended to all other Displaced Families/

W.P.(C) No.23848 of 2022 Page 12 of 28

Project Affected Persons who have exercised option for

homestead in Household Interview Schedule.

6.4. He fervently requested to dismiss the writ application.

Analysis:

7. The arguments advanced by the counsel for the

respective parties proceeded on the basis that whether

the petitioner is entitled for allotment of homestead

despite exercise of option “No” against the column:

“Homestead within the Rehabilitation Colony”.

7.1. Bare reading of the impugned Order dated 06.08.2022

(Annexure-7) would reveal that the rejection of claim of

the petitioner has been made on the sole ground that the

petitioner “has not preferred for homestead land during

household survey”.

7.2. On perusal of record it is discernible that though at

paragraph 3 of the writ petition the petitioner has

mentioned about Plot No.423, 424 and 425 in Khata

No.9 and Plot No.477/687 and Plot No.476/688 in

Khata No.84/12, the notice dated 19.05.2012 relating to

land acquisition (Annexure-2) confined to Plot Nos.423,

424 and 425 in Khata No.9 and the kisam was described

as “homestead” (gharabari), but not “ghara” as stated at

paragraph 3 of the writ petition.

W.P.(C) No.23848 of 2022 Page 13 of 28

7.3. Minute scrutiny of the documents enclosed with the writ

petition would indicate that the Executive Engineer,

Lower Suktel RRC&B Division, Balangir issued Letter

dated 23.09.2017 specifying entitlement of nineteen

Displaced Families for allotment of homestead plots, but

in Section 14 of the Household Interview Schedule

enclosed with the counter affidavit depicts that the

petitioner has exercised option as “No” against the

column “Homestead within the Rehabilitation Colony”.

7.4. The counsel for the petitioner advanced arguments

arduously by contending that the petitioner was not

aware of the implication of Household Interview

Schedule and such option has been obtained without

proper consent inasmuch as there was “manipulation”

with mala fide intent.

7.5. In this regard it may be noteworthy here to quote from

the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner:

“That, the petitioner submits here that, at Para-6 & 11 of

the counter mention that, the petitioner selection letter

No.1331 dt.23.09.2017 of the Executive Engineer, Lower

Suktel Rehabilitation Resettlement Camp and Building

Division, Balangir (O.P. No.6). The Opposite Party take

place household interview schedule no date and time has

been mention in option form. The petitioner opted for

land “yes” but the Opposite Parties manipulating

the documents and change the same. The Opposite

Parties not conducted the house hold interview as per the

W.P.(C) No.23848 of 2022 Page 14 of 28

Section 7 (sic., Paragraph 8) of Policy, 2006. The principle

of natural justice has been violated by the opposite party

No.7, on the ground that, the Opposite Parties misutilized

principle decided in the rules and regulation frame by the

Water Resources Department Government of Odisha the

same has been rejected the claim of the petitioner and the

Opposite Party No.7 take averment regarding not the

competent authority for allot the Plot/land to the

displaced families. Therefore, the said Letter No.1331,

dt.23.09.2017 cannot be considered as an allotment order

for homestead land. The Opposite Party No.6 several

homestead land allotted to the displace family vide

Allotment Order, 1008 dt.27.08.2019 Memo No.678(2)

Dt.22.05.2017 and Memo No.1343 dated 15.09.2015 and

one Susanta Barik all the person are allotted by the

Opposite Party No.6 in Block-B, C, D at Larkipali and

Sadeipali Rehabilitation Colony Mouza- Larkipali and

Sadeipali Dist: Balangir without household survey

conducted by the Opposite Parties homestead land

already been allotted in the village of Pardhiapali.”

7.6. Though it is easy to allege manipulation, it is difficult to

prove. Such allegation involves factual adjudication and

cannot be examined or enquired into by way of a petition

under the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of

India. It, thus, is transparent from the averments of the

writ petition that the petitioner attacked the conduct of

the enumerator(s)/surveyors in making entry in the

Homestead Interview Schedule without bringing on

record any specific instance. There is no iota of evidence

to demonstrate that the petitioner raised such issue

before the authority concerned. The petitioner while

W.P.(C) No.23848 of 2022 Page 15 of 28

making scurrilous attack on the authorities/officials

appears to have deliberately ignored to array them as

party in person.

4

7.7. A Division Bench of this Court in Jagdamba Polymers

Pvt. Ltd. Vrs. State of Odiaha, W.P.(C) No.10555 of 2008,

vide Judgment dated 17.09.2008

held,

“11. There has to be very strong and convincing evidence

to establish the allegations of mala fides specifically

alleged in the petition as the same cannot merely be

presumed. The presumption is in favour of the

bona fides of the order unless contradicted by

acceptable material. (Vide State of U.P. Vrs. Dr.

V.N. Prasad, 1995 Suppl (2) SCC 151; Arvind

Dattatraya Dhande Vrs. State of Maharashtra,

(1997) 6 SCC 169; Utkal University Vrs. Dr.

Nrusingha Charan Sarangi, (1999) 2 SCC 193; Kiran

Gupta Vrs. State of U.P., (2000) 7 SCC 719; and

Netai Bag Vrs. State of W.B., (2000) 8 SCC 262).

***

13. In First Land Acquisition Collector Vrs. Nirodhi

Prakash Gangoli, (2002) 4 SCC 160; and Jasvinder

Singh Vrs. State of J&K, (2003) 2 SCC 132, the Apex

Court held that burden of proving mala fides is very

heavy on the person who alleges it. Mere allegation

is not enough. Party making such allegations is

under the legal obligation to place specific materials

before the Court to substantiate the said allegations.

4

Madhuchhanda Sahoo and Others Vrs. Odisha State Health & Family Welfar e

Society, Government of Odisha & Others, 2024 ILR-CUT ONLINE 218.

W.P.(C) No.23848 of 2022 Page 16 of 28

14. More so, it is settled legal proposition that in case

allegations of mala fide are made against any

person he is to be impleaded by name, otherwise the

allegations cannot be considered. (Vide State of

Bihag Vrs. P.P. Sharma, I.A.S. Of Delhi, AIR 1996 SC

326; All India State Bank Officers‟ Federation Vrs.

Union of India, (1997) 9 SCC 151; and I.K. Mishra

Vrs. Union of India, (1997) 6 SCC 228.)

15. In Federation of Rly. Officers‟ Association Vrs. Union

of India, AIR 2003 SC 1344, the Apex Court has

held that the allegation of mala fide has to be

specifically made and the person against whom

such allegations are made has to be impleaded and

his absence such allegations cannot be taken into

consideration.”

7.8. A fact is said to be proved when the Court is satisfied as

to its truth, and the evidence by which that result is

produced is called the proof. The general rule is that the

burden of proof (onus probandi) lies on the party who

asserts the affirmative of the issue or question in

dispute. When that party adduces evidence sufficient to

raise a presumption that what he asserts is true, he is

said to shift the burden of proof; that is, his allegation is

taken to be true, unless his opponent adduces evidence

to rebut the presumption.

5 Strong suspicion, strange

coincidence and grave doubts cannot take place of legal

proof.

5

See, Concise Law Dictionary, by P.G. Osborn, published by Sweet and M axwell,

1927.

W.P.(C) No.23848 of 2022 Page 17 of 28

7.9. A fact is said to be proved when after considering the

matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist or

considers its existence so probable that a prudent man

ought under the circumstances of the particular case to

act upon the supposition that it exists. What is required

is production of such materials on which the Court can

reasonably act to reach the supposition that a fact

exists. Proof of the fact depends upon the degree of

probability of its having existed. The standard required

for reaching the supposition is that of a prudent man

acting in any important matter concerning him. Proof

does not mean proof to rigid mathematical

demonstration because that is impossible; it must mean

such evidence as would induce a reasonable man to

come to a particular conclusion.

6

7.10. Save and except denial of having put “No” in the

Household Interview Schedule, the petitioner has not

brought on record any material which would

demonstrate that the exercise of option was manipulated

or the same was done with mala fides.

7.11. Section 14 of the Household Interview Schedule it is

clearly stated as “No” against “Homestead within the

Rehabilitation Colony”. On the query, Sri Lalit Sahu,

learned Advocate did not dispute the signature being put

6

M. Narasinga Rao Vrs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2001 SC 318; T. Shankar

Prasad Vrs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2004) 3 SCC 753.

W.P.(C) No.23848 of 2022 Page 18 of 28

by the petitioner in his own handwriting at the foot of

the “declaration for option relating to resettlement and

rehabilitation benefits” vide Section 14 of the Household

Interview Schedule. It is observed that such signature is

put in presence of a witness and other family member.

Such information contained therein was also certified by

the surveyor/investigator. The relevant columns of said

Schedule were filled up by own handwriting. On

comparing the signatures of the petitioner on the

Schedule and the Vakalatnama this Court finds there is

similarity.

7.12. Another significant aspect which deserves to be taken

note of is that when the petitioner has alleged

“manipulation” by the investigator/surveyor who

maintained the Household Interview Schedule in course

of household survey, in absence of making him party to

this proceeding, this Court would not conduct fishing

and roving enquiry. Mere allegation, in absence of

substantial material being adduced by the petitioner,

would not lead to believe that there was manipulation

and paucity of material particulars would not suffice for

this Court to enquire into the matter in exercise of power

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

7.13. A clear stance has been taken by the opposite parties by

way of Affidavit dated 31.07.2023 that the case of the

petitioner is considered under the ORRP, 2006 but not

W.P.(C) No.23848 of 2022 Page 19 of 28

the Policy of 2013. It has been adumbrated by the

opposite party No.7-Superintending Engineer that none

of the Displaced Families of Village Khagsabahal

including the petitioner have opted for Homestead land

in the relevant column of the Individual Household

Interview Schedule during the Socio-Economic Survey

held during 2009 to 2011. The Village level meeting to

commence the Socio-Economic Survey was held on

10.09.2009 and final Survey report was submitted in

March, 2011. It is further submitted that after collection

of data from the project affected families in the

Individual Survey Schedule, data has been compiled and

final volume of Survey has been prepared by the Survey

Agency. At Page No.50 of the final Survey report of

Khagsabahal Village it is clearly mentioned that, “All the

241 Displaced Families have suggested to resettle on

their own of which 34 have suggested the name of the

place where they want to resettle. Rest Displaced

Families will also resettle on their own but during the

period of survey they have not finalized the place where

they want to go”. As against this statement of the

opposite parties, a reply affidavit dated 17.08.2023 has

been filed by the petitioner by affirming the fact that the

entry in the Record-of-Right depicting him as “Christian”

is error; rather he belongs to “Ganda” community which

ought to be treated as “Scheduled Caste”. It is also

stated in the said affidavit that the petitioner has not

W.P.(C) No.23848 of 2022 Page 20 of 28

been extended the compensation although the same is

sanctioned as per the ORRP, 2006. Due to soaring prices

the petitioner is unable to purchase land inasmuch as

the opposite parties have not released the cash

equivalent @Rs.50,000/- to each displaced family opting

for self-relocation elsewhere in terms of Paragraph 9(III):

Type C of the ORRP, 2006. As against such contention,

the affidavit dated 31.07.2023 sworn to by the

Superintending Engineer, LSRRC&B Division made the

following clarification at paragraph 4 thereat,

“That, in reply to the averments made in Paragraph-8 of

the rejoinder affidavit it is humbly submitted that R&R

Policy, 2006 is applicable for the village Khagsabahal

under Lower Suktel Irrigation Project as Land of

Khagsabahal village has been acquired under the

provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Notification

under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was

issued for the said village vide Notification No.

42098/R&DM, dated 03.09.2001 of Government in

Revenue & DM Department, Odisha. The Land

Acquisition compensation has already been paid to

the beneficiary.”

7.14. It is thus manifestly clear from the contents of the

rejoinder affidavit dated 16.01.2023 that after the

inhabitants who opted for Homestead land at the stage

of survey on account of Household Interview Schedule

got the allotment orders, the petitioner sought to

prevaricate his option offered earlier. For this purpose,

W.P.(C) No.23848 of 2022 Page 21 of 28

during the course of hearing Sri Lalit Sahu, learned

Advocate sought to stem on amended provision

contained in Paragraph 8 of the ORRP, 2006, which

came to be published in the Odisha Gazette,

Extraordinary No.2168, dated 16.12.2017. On perusal of

Letter dated 23.09.2017 of the Executive Engineer,

Lower Suktel RRC&B Division, Balangir vide Annexure-3

enclosed with the writ petition addressed to the Special

Land Acquisition Officer and Copies of Household

Interview Schedule vide Annexure-B/7 enclosed with the

counter affidavit would demonstrate that the option for

Homestead within the Rehabilitation Colony has been

exercised prior to 23.09.2017. Therefore, the submission

of the learned counsel that the manner provided under

Paragraph 8 as amended with effect from 16.12.2017

would attract in the present case is fallacious.

7.15. For better comprehension of the contention set out by

learned counsel for the petitioner, relevant portion of

Paragraph 8 of the ORRP, 2006 (pre and post

amendment) is given hereunder:

Paragraph 8

before amendment

Paragraph 8

after amendment

7. Resettlement and

Rehabilitation

Plan.—

Based on the list

approved by

7. Resettlement and

Rehabilitation Plan.—

Based on the list

approved by

Government and 1st

W.P.(C) No.23848 of 2022 Page 22 of 28

Government and

option of displaced

families,

Resettlement and

Rehabilitation Plan

shall be prepared

by the Collector for

resettlement and

rehabilitation after

due consultation

with displaced

communities in the

manner determined

by the Government.

Such plan should

address the specific

needs of the

women, vulnerable

groups and

indigenous

communities. The

same will be placed

before the RPDAC

for approval.

While preparing the

plan, the following

aspects should be

taken into

consideration: ***

option of displaced

families, the

Resettlement and

Rehabilitation Plan shall

be prepared by the

Collector for

resettlement and

rehabilitation after due

consultation with

displaced communities

in the manner

determined by the

Government. The

change of option shall

be allowed only once

within a period of six

months from the date

of exercising the first

option. Such plan

should address the

specific needs of the

women, vulnerable

groups and indigenous

communities. The same

will be placed before the

RPDAC for approval.

While preparing the

plan, the following

aspects should be taken

into consideration: ***

7.16. Based on the amended provision the counsel for the

petitioner canvassed before this Court that the scope for

change of option was not granted to the petitioner in

W.P.(C) No.23848 of 2022 Page 23 of 28

terms of Paragraph 8, as it stands after amendment. As

is apparent, the amendment to ORRP, 2006 being

published in the Odisha Gazette, Extraordinary

No.2168, dated 16.12.2017, the enumeration in

Household Interview Schedule being made prior to

23.09.2017 (manifest from Annexures-A/7 and B/7

enclosed with counter affidavit) the amended provision

would not be applicable. Such observation is fortified by

having glance at Annexure-L/7 enclosed with Affidavit

dated 31.07.2023 which is a document prepared in the

month of March, 2011 showing “Socio-Economic Survey

and Socio-Cultural Resource Mapping and

Infrastructural Survey and R&R Action Plan” with

respect to Village: Khagasabahal, Lower Suktel Irrigation

Project, Balangir. In the said document having exercised

choices the names of Displaced Families selected for

their resettlement have been placed at Table 4.5.

Reading the document at Annexure-K/7 would leave no

ambiguity in mind that a Resolution has been passed on

10.09.2009 in the General Body Meeting of said village

to the effect that cooperation would be extended for

survey regarding Displaced Families in terms of ORRP,

2006.

7.17. Therefore, for the reasons so ascribed this Court comes

to the irresistible conclusion that no error is perceived in

the impugned Order dated 06.08.2022 passed by the

W.P.(C) No.23848 of 2022 Page 24 of 28

Superintending Engineer, Lower Suktel Resettlement,

Rehabilitation C&B Division, Balangir (Annexure-7) in

compliance of direction contained in the Order dated

04.07.2022 while disposing of writ application being

W.P.(C) No.15542 of 2022.

7.18. The reason that the petitioner “has not preferred for the

Homestead land during household survey” as assigned

by the Superintending Engineer, Lower Suktel

Resettlement, Rehabilitation C&B Division, Balangir

(Annexure-7) while passing the Order dated 06.08.2022

is based on evidence on record and on proper

appreciation of material available with the authority. The

view expressed by the authority, Superintending

Engineer, Lower Suktel Resettlement, Rehabilitation

C&B Division, Balangir, cannot be said to be illogical,

irrational or tainted with bias or mala fides. Hence, this

Court desists from exercising power under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India to show indulgence in favour of

the petitioner’s claim for homestead land, even as the

determination had been made with respect to “cash in

lieu of homestead land”.

8. Sri Lalit Sahu, learned Advocate would submit that on

the assurance by the Government that the petitioner

would be relocated, he vacated house and land which

are now completely submerged in the course of the

irrigation canal. The petitioner has been rendered

W.P.(C) No.23848 of 2022 Page 25 of 28

homeless and landless since the date of vacating way

back in the year 2001 (paragraph 17 of the writ petition).

Although the petitioner had been waiting for allotment of

homestead land he has not been communicated

anything by the opposite parties.

8.1. To buttress such contention the learned counsel relied

on Krupasindhu Parida Vrs. State, 1997 SCC OnLine Ori

163 = 83 (1997) CLT 760, wherein it has been observed

as follows:

“The present writ petition by twelve petitioners

seeks the following reliefs:—

„*** issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any

other suitable writ quashing Annexure-4 series and

directing the opposite parties to pay the present

valuation of the agricultural and/or homestead land

which stand due to the petitioners as given in

Annexure-4 after deducting the amount already paid

or direct the opposite parties to pay the 1978 value

of the land with interest from 1978 and the

valuation may kindly be fixed as per valuation in

consolidation proceedings.‟

***

7. Having heard in details and considering the further

affidavits filed on behalf of opposite party No. 1. We

are of the view that as per the policy Resolution

(Annexure-1) the required lands have not been given

to the petitioners. Valuation of such land so made

appears to be meagre and without any proper basis.

Valuation claimed does not fulfil the test. The writ

W.P.(C) No.23848 of 2022 Page 26 of 28

petitioners are illiterate Scheduled Tribes. They have

lost their hearth and home. The policy is very clear

to provide alternative land for homestead and also

for agriculture. It is not to deprive them by offering a

price which is not just and fair. On perusal of the

materials on record, we are of the view that the

petitioners are moved from pillar to post and no

effective steps have been taken We find sufficient

merit in the contentions of the writ petitioners. We

accordingly allow the writ petition directing the

Special Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation Officer

to give a further opportunity of hearing in the

petitioners and take effective steps to offer the land

as per the policy and if the lands are not available,

make proper valuation as on the date of offer to be

made together with all recurring interest in the

manner as provides in the Land Acquisition Act and

settle the dispute within a period of three months

from the date of communication of the order. There

would be no order as to costs.”

8.2. This Court is afraid to grant similar benefit as is

extended to the petitioners in Krupasindhu Parida

(supra) inasmuch as the prayer made or relief claimed by

the petitioner herein is quite different. In contrast with

the prayer in Krupasindhu Parida (supra) as quoted

hereinabove, in the present case the prayer of the

petitioner is to quash the Order in Memo No.1856, dated

06.08.2022 (Annexure-7) and to provide the petitioner

with a homestead land in Block-C Larkipali and

Sadeipali Rehabilitation Colony.

W.P.(C) No.23848 of 2022 Page 27 of 28

8.3. Reliance is also placed on Chintamani Mallik and Others

Vrs. State of Odisha and Others, 2016 SCC OnLine Ori

49

7 to contend that based on Krupasindhu Parida (supra)

this Court granted relief to the petitioners. In the said

case, viz., Chintamani Mallik (supra), also the petitioner

had the alternative prayer, which is completely lacking

in the instant case. In the present case the petitioner

has assailed the Order of Superintending Engineer

(Annexure-7) passed pursuant to direction of this Court

vide Order dated 04.07.2022 in W.P.(C) No.15542 of

2022.

7

This Court observed:

“15. When the petitioners were displaced from their homestead lands and

agricultural lands in between 1978 to 1980 and by acquisition of such

lands by Government, the petitioners were rendered homeless and

landless and they had no other patch of land elsewhere, they should have

been granted the benefits of rehabilitation policy as framed by the

Government in Irrigation and Power Department under resolution dated

20.04.1977 immediately. There was inordinate delay for more than ten

years at the level of the Government to decide the quantum of money to be

paid per acre to the displaced persons as no free leasable Government

land in the vicinity was available and accordingly in the year 1991,

Rehabilitation Misc. Case No. 5 of 1991 was instituted for payment of

rehabilitation cash grant assistance to the displaced persons and notices

were issued to those persons including the petitioners. When there was

laches on the part of Government in not paying the rehabilitation cash

grant assistance immediately, the petitioners cannot be deprived of their

legitimate expectation of receiving cash grant at the prevailing market rate

of the lands when the offer was made. If the petitioners or the displaced

persons like the petitioners would have got the rehabilitation cash grant

sooner immediately after their displacement, it would have been better for

them for making proper investment inasmuch as money not only has a

monetary value but it has also got a time value.

16. In view of the submissions raised at the Bar and the statement of the

learned Addl. Standing Counsel that the case of the petitioners is identical

to Krupasindhu Parida's case, we allow the writ petition directing the

opposite party no. 3 to give a further opportunity of hearing to the

petitioners and take effective steps to offer the land as per the

rehabilitation policy under Annexure-1 and if the lands are not available,

to make proper valuation as on the date of offer to be made together with

all recurring interest in the manner as provided in the Land Acquisition

Act and settle the dispute within a period of three months from the date of

communication of the order.”

W.P.(C) No.23848 of 2022 Page 28 of 28

8.4. Be that be, Sri Satyabrata Mohanty, learned Additional

Government Advocate drew attention of this Court to a

document titled “Entitlement Matrix of Displaced

Families (DFs) of Village Khagasabahal— cut-off date

01.01.2020” enclosed as Annexure -4, whereby it is

clearly reflected that the petitioner, whose name finds

place at Serial No.26, has been extended the benefits

inter alia Rs.85,825/- as against column No.18 with

description: “Cash in lieu of Homestead Land”.

8.5. In such view of the matter, the prayer of the petitioner

cannot be acceded to.

Conclusion:

9. Ergo, finding no merit, this writ petition stands

dismissed along with pending Interlocutory

Application(s), if any, but in the circumstances, there

shall be no order as to costs.

I agree.

(MANASH RANJAN PATHAK) (MURAHARI SRI RAMAN)

JUDGE JUDGE

High Court of Orissa, Cuttack

The 10

th August, 2026/Aswini/Laxmikant