Jagara Singh Kawar vs State Of Orissa And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 7804 Ori

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                              W.P.(C) No. 4884 of 2014

Jagara Singh Kawar                    .....                                   Petitioner
                                                            Mr. U.K. Samal, Advocate
                                      Vs.
State of Orissa and others            .....                            Opposite Parties
                                                              Mr. L. Samantaray, AGA,
                                                      Mr. A. Patnaik, Advocate (O.P.4)
                                                Mr. Satyajit Mohanty, Advocate (O.P.5)
               CORAM:
                  DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
                     MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
                                                ORDER

19.07.2023

Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

06.

2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the notification issued by the Government vide Notification No. 25987/R dated 13.07.2006 and the notification issued by the Land Acquisition Collector, Sundargarh under Annexure-1.

3. Mr. Samal, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the said notification is without jurisdiction and as such is beyond the competency of the State Government. Therefore, he has approached this Court in the present writ petition.

4. Mr. L. Samantaray, learned Additional Government Advocate contended that he has received the instruction that the notification was issued pursuant to the authorization given by the Central Government. That apart the land has been acquired and compensation amount has already been paid. Now the petitioner cannot turn around and say that the notification is not in consonance with the provisions of law. He further contended that the petitioner has himself admitted in

paragraphs-4 and 11 of the writ petition that he has received the compensation amount, but he has not vacated the premises. Therefore, he has no right to claim that the notification is bad. If the petitioner claims for higher compensation, he may approach the competent authority by filing appropriate application.

5. Mr. U.K. Samal, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that even if the land has been acquired and the petitioner has received the compensation amount, that if ipso facto cannot deprive the petitioner to challenge the notification dated 13.07.2006. He further contended that if the State Government is not willing to file counter affidavit, in that case, he may be permitted to file a written notes of argument incorporating the judgment passed by the apex Court in the case of Radhey Shyam (Dead) thru LRs. and others v. State of U.P. and others, (2011) 5 SCC 553, within a week

6. Mr. Satyajit Mohanty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.5 contended that the allocation of land of all the coal blocks have been cancelled as per the decision of the apex Court in the case of Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary and others, (2014) 9 SCC 516.

7. Call this matter after one week.

(DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE

Arun (M.S. RAMAN) JUDGE

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Designation: ADR-cum-Addl. Principal Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court Date: 19-Jul-2023 17:30:02