Orissa High Court
Rabindra Jena vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opp. ... on 12 August, 2025
Bench: K.R. Mohapatra, Savitri Ratho
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 14-Aug-2025 15:54:25
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 21432 OF 2025
Rabindra Jena .... Petitioner
Mr. H.S. Deo, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opp. Parties
Mr. Swayambhu Mishra,
Additional Standing Counsel
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
ORDER
Order No. 12.08.2025
1. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. This writ petition has been filed for a direction to pay
compensation to the Petitioner in respect of acquisition of his land
in terms of the direction in LAA No.143 of 2010 filed before this
Court under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for
brevity 'the Act').
3. The Petitioner also prays for a direction to consider his
case for grant of compensation in terms of the order passed in
W.P.(C) No.2804 of 2023.
4. Mr. Deo, learned counsel submits that the land was
recorded in the name of deceased father of the Petitioner. The
same was acquired for the establishment of a sugar industry.
Accordingly, LA Case No.4 of 1995 was initiated. The
Petitioner's Mother initially received compensation of Rs.24,326/-
in the year, 2001 for acquisition of the land in Plot
Nos.25,28,330,190,16,33,115 to an extent of Ac.1.04 decimals of
Mouza-Majurigadia. One of the farmers, whose land was located
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 14-Aug-2025 15:54:25
in the same area and had a similar status as that of the land
belonging to the deceased father of the Petitioner had filed an
application for reference. Accordingly, learned Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Bhadrak registered LA Misc. Case No.248 of
1996 on his file and enhanced the compensation. In the meantime,
this Court in LAA No.143 of 2010, awarded a higher
compensation in respect of similar nature of land. Subsequently,
in W.P.(C) No.2804 of 2023, this Court vide order dated 7th
February, 2023 directed the Collector, Bhadrak to consider the
representation of the Petitioner in the said writ petition and
considering such representation, Petitioner therein was awarded
higher compensation. The Petitioner has also filed representation
before the Collector, Bhadrak to consider his case for higher
compensation. However, the representation was not entertained,
as there was no direction from this Court to consider it.
5. It is submitted by Mr. Deo, learned counsel for the
Petitioner that in the event a direction is made for consideration of
representation of the Petitioner for higher compensation, there is
every possibility of the Petitioner getting a higher compensation.
6. Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel
vehemently objects to the submission made by Mr. Deo, learned
counsel for the Petitioner. He submits that the case of the
Petitioner should not be considered in terms of the judgment
passed in LAA No.143 of 2010, as the acquisition of land
involved in the said appeal was under a different notification. The
Petitioner had also never filed any application for enhancement of
compensation after receipt of award pursuant to the judgment
passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhadrak in LA
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 14-Aug-2025 15:54:25
Case No.4 of 1995. Thus, the Petitioner has no cause of action to
file the present writ petition and no direction may be issued after a
long lapse of time for consideration of the case of the Petitioner
for higher compensation.
7. Taking note of the submissions made by learned counsel
for the parties, this Court finds that the judgment in LAA No.143
of 2010 passed by this Court under Section 54 of the Act is not at
all applicable to the case of the Petitioner, as the Appellant therein
had preferred an Appeal under Section 54 of the Act for higher
compensation before this Court. Admittedly, the Petitioner had
never availed such statutory remedy either under Section 18 or
Section 54 of the Act. Further, the order passed in W.P.(C)
No.2804 of 2023 cannot be treated as a precedent and the
Petitioner has not made out any case to issue such a direction.
Moreover, direction for consideration of the representation of the
Petitioner in absence of any statutory provision will be a travesty
of law. Hence, we find no merit in the case of the Petitioner.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge
(Savitri Ratho)
ms Judge
