Supreme Court Restores Land Compensation Share in Odisha Acquisition Dispute

The case of Manjari Tanty @ Laria v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Sub Collector, Ultra Mega Power Project, Sundargarh & Ors. revolved around a dispute over compensation arising from land acquisition in Odisha. The Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether the appellant was entitled to a 50% share of the compensation awarded under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Background of the Case

The Government of Odisha, through a notification dated April 28, 2010, initiated acquisition proceedings for land in Village Lankahuda, District Sundargarh. The acquired land belonged to Late Jadumani and measured 7.690 acres. After acquisition, multiple claimants, including the appellant, approached the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) for their share of compensation.

The appellant, Manjari Tanty, claimed a 50% share of the compensation as a legal heir of Late Jadumani. However, the LAO rejected her claim based on a will produced by respondent no. 3, stating that the appellant’s father, Kuladhara, had predeceased the original landholder in 1973. This decision led to an appeal before the Senior Civil Judge, Sundargarh, who ruled in favor of the appellant. The judgment was later overturned by the Orissa High Court, prompting an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Key Issues Before the Supreme Court

Whether the appellant was entitled to a 50% share in the compensation awarded under the Land Acquisition Act.
Whether the claim that Kuladhara (appellant’s father) predeceased the landholder in 1973 was factually correct.
Whether the High Court erred in setting aside the trial court’s order in favor of the appellant.

Arguments by the Appellant

The appellant, represented by senior counsel, contended that:

Her father, Kuladhara, had passed away on July 14, 1993, not in 1973, as wrongly claimed by the respondents.
The Orissa High Court erred in restoring the LAO’s decision without verifying the evidence properly.
A certified copy of the death register confirming Kuladhara’s death in 1993 was produced, proving the claim was valid.
The LAO’s reliance on the will favoring respondent no. 3 was flawed and should have been subjected to further scrutiny.

Arguments by the Respondents

The respondents, led by senior counsel, argued that:

The appellant initially recorded her father’s death as occurring in 1973 but later attempted to amend it to 1993.
The High Court correctly relied on previous records indicating that the appellant’s father predeceased the landholder.
Once an amendment application seeking to change the death date had been dismissed, it should not have been reconsidered.
The District & Sessions Judge’s inquiry into the matter was unnecessary and should not have been given precedence over previous findings.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

The Supreme Court, comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka, thoroughly examined the evidence, including the findings from the inquiry conducted by the District & Sessions Judge of Sundargarh.

Key Findings

The District Court’s Inquiry Confirmed the Death Date: The Supreme Court accepted the independent inquiry, which found that Kuladhara died on July 14, 1993, thus supporting the appellant’s claim.
High Court’s Decision Was Based on Incorrect Assumptions: The Court observed that the High Court relied on records that erroneously stated 1973 as the year of death, ignoring more credible documentary evidence.
The Appellant Was Entitled to a 50% Share of Compensation: Since she was a direct legal heir of Late Jadumani, she had a rightful claim to half the compensation.

Key Observations by the Supreme Court

“The order of the High Court cannot be sustained when there is clear documentary evidence proving that the appellant’s father died in 1993 and not in 1973 as initially recorded.”

“An incorrect factual determination at an early stage of the case should not deny a rightful legal heir their legitimate share of compensation.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled:

The Orissa High Court’s decision dated June 28, 2019, was set aside.
The ruling of the Senior Civil Judge, Sundargarh, dated February 16, 2016, was restored, confirming the appellant’s entitlement to 50% of the compensation.
The appellant was granted her lawful share of compensation as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling has significant implications:

Corrects an Injustice in Land Compensation Claims: The judgment ensures that factual inaccuracies do not deprive legitimate heirs of their rightful compensation.
Emphasizes the Role of Independent Inquiry: The Supreme Court upheld the credibility of inquiries conducted by lower courts when properly substantiated with evidence.
Guides Future Land Acquisition Disputes: The ruling sets a precedent for similar cases where inheritance rights are challenged based on conflicting historical records.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Manjari Tanty v. Special Land Acquisition Officer underscores the importance of factual accuracy in land acquisition disputes. By restoring the appellant’s rightful share of compensation, the Court reaffirmed the necessity of independent verification in cases involving conflicting records. The ruling ensures that rightful heirs are not denied justice due to bureaucratic errors or misinterpretation of documentary evidence.

Petitioner Name: Manjari Tanty @ Laria.
Respondent Name: Special Land Acquisition Officer and Sub Collector, Ultra Mega Power Project, Sundargarh & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Ajay Rastogi, Justice Abhay S. Oka.
Place Of Incident: Sundargarh, Odisha.
Judgment Date: 27-09-2021.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: manjari-tanty-@-lari-vs-special-land-acquisi-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-27-09-2021.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Damages and Compensation
See all petitions in Judgment by Ajay Rastogi
See all petitions in Judgment by Abhay S. Oka
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments September 2021
See all petitions in 2021 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category