Orissa High Court
Poulasti Danga vs State Of Odisha & Ors on 13 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P (C) No. 121 of 2023
Poulasti Danga ..... Petitioner
Mr. S.D. Das, Sr. Advocate along with
Mr. M.M. Swain, Advocate
Vs.
State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite parties
State Counsel
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
MR. JUSTICE B.P. SATAPATHY
ORDER
13.01.2023
Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr. S.D. Das, learned Senior Counsel appearing
along with Mr. M.M. Swain, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mr. P.K. Muduli, learned Additional Government
Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties.
3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking
direction to the opposite parties seeking to pay the
compensation in respect of the land pertaining to Khata
No.16/21, Plot No.154, Ac. 0.02 dec. out of Ac. 0.51 dec.,
kisam-Atta, Mouza-Bhaurinpathara, Tahasil-Harabhanga and
the building standing over it in favour of the petitioner within
a stipulated period, and further to declare the date of
Preliminary Notification made under Section 11(1) of Right to
Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short
'RFCTLAR&R Act, 2013), i.e., as 12.06.2020, as contrary to
the provisions of Section 11(1) of the said Act and further to
issue direction to the opposite parties to consider the date of
preliminary notification under Section 11(1) of the
RFCTLAR&R Act, 2013 as 27.02.2022 i.e. the date on which
the land acquisition notification was published in the daily
newspaper in regional language i.e. 27.02.2022.
4. Mr. S.D. Das, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioner contended that Section-11(1) of RFCTLAR&R Act,
2013 is parimateria to the provisions contained in Section-
4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984. Therefore, the
petitioner claims that from the date of publication in the
official gazette, the petitioner is entitled to get compensation
both for the land and building. Thereby, non-consideration of
the case of the petitioner for extension of benefit cannot be
sustained in the eye of law. To substantiate his contentions he
has relied upon the judgment of the apex Court in Collector
(District Magistrate) Allahabad & Anr. V. Raja Ram
Jaiswal, (1985) 3 SCC 1 and Madhya Pradesh Housing
Board v. Mohd. Shafi & Ors., (1992) 2 SCC 168.
5. In the opinion of this Court, the matter requires
consideration.
6. Issue notice to the opposite parties.
7. Let five extra copies of the writ petition be served
within three days on learned Additional Government
Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties, as he
appears for opposite parties no.1 to 5 to enable him to obtain
instructions or file counter affidavit.
8. Put up this matter after two weeks along with W.P.(C)
Nos.36225, 36227 and 36353 of 2022 and W.P.(C) No. 97 of
2023.
(DR. B.R. SARANGI)
JUDGE
Ashok (B.P. SATAPATHY)
JUDGE
