Cuttack: The Orissa high court has restrained the state govt from evicting three sevayats from their homes near Baba Akhandalamani Temple at Aradi in Bhadrak district until they are provided fully developed alternative plots under the rehabilitation scheme.Justice S K Panigrahi, in a judgment delivered on Aug 21 and uploaded online on Aug 31, quashed the eviction notices issued to the petitioners, who had been asked to vacate their homes within seven days or the structures would be demolished for the temple redevelopment project. The court made it clear that it was not questioning the public purpose behind redevelopment of the temple complex, the dispute was only over whether the sevayats could be displaced before the govt fulfilled its rehabilitation obligations.In a significant observation, Justice Panigrahi said, “Rehabilitation must, therefore, travel from the file to the field. A plot on paper is not a home on the ground.”Accordingly, the court directed the Bhadrak collector to obtain necessary administrative and financial sanctions within six weeks and ensure completion of the rehabilitation site within six months. The developed site must have levelled land, all-weather roads, drainage, electricity, potable water and other basic amenities. The collector and superintending engineer concerned must jointly certify completion and formally hand over the plots.The court ordered that ‘no coercive eviction or demolition’ be undertaken until these requirements are fulfilled. Thereafter, the authorities can issue fresh notices giving the sevayats 15 clear days to vacate, Justice Panigrahi specified in the order.The state had identified 2.10 acres of govt land for rehabilitation, including 1.275 acres for homestead plots and 0.825 acres for roads, drainage, electricity, water supply and other amenities.The petitioners had received monetary rehabilitation benefits over Rs 3 lakh each. Alternative plots for the petitioners had also been recorded in their names. But the court found that the rehabilitation site was low-lying and remained undeveloped. “An allotment or revenue entry only identifies the beneficiary and the land allotted. It does not amount to delivery of possession of a demarcated and usable plot,” Justice Panigrahi observed.The court referred to Section 38(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, which requires completion of rehabilitation and resettlement “in all its aspects” before affected families are displaced.
