D.G.R. Patnaik, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) FROM the rival submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties, the facts which emerge are as follows: The petitioner was in occupation of 60 acres of land of Village -Hisra Pokhraha. Upon requisition of the Executive Engineer, Auranga Construction Division, Tumbagarh, Daltonganj dated -26.04.1989, petitioner's 60 acres of land was acquired for the purposes of rehabilitation of displaced family of the Auranga Reservoir Forest. The possession of the 60 acres of land of the petitioner was taken over by the concerned Department of the State Government and construction work on the lands were commenced by the concerned Department way back in 1989 itself. Upon occupying the lands and commencing construction thereon, the house structures standing on the lands were also demolished. Almost nine years thereafter, a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the District Gazette for the acquisition of 60 acres of the petitioner's land. However, the Land Acquisition Proceedings had lapsed under Section 11A of the Act, since no Award could be made within the statutory period of two years. Consequently, on 15.01.2002, a fresh Notification under Section 4 of the Act was published in the District Gazette for acquisition of 48.73 acres of land. On 05.011.2003, the D.C., Palamau recommended for De -Notification of 18.50 acres of land out of the 48.73 acres on the ground that on verification, it was found that 16.66 acres of land falls within Forest area and 2 acres etc. outside the requisitioned plan. However, The Land Acquisition Proceeding again lapsed during de -notification, since it remained inconclusive Since the petitioner had not received any compensation for his lands, which were acquired ever since the date of he was dispossessed in 1989, he filed a writ application for a direction upon the Respondents to pay compensation not only for the lands acquired but also for his residential house and other building structures, which were demolished by the Respondents and also for the pond, which fell within the acquired lands.
(3.) BY interim order dated -13.06.2007, in the light of the undertaking given by the Respondents to pay 80 per cent of the awarded amount, this Court had directed the Respondents to pay the legally payable amount to the petitioner. Pursuant to the interim order, the Respondents paid some amount purporting to be 80 per cent of the estimated payable compensation. The remaining 20 per cent has not been paid to the petitioner.;