[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Phaganu Parabhue vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opp. ... on 22 December, 2025
Bench: K.R. Mohapatra, Savitri Ratho
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK
Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 23-Dec-2025 13:28:30
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C). NO.36562 OF 2025
Phaganu Parabhue .... Petitioner
Mr. Bijaya Kumar Behera (1), Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opp. Parties
Mr. Siba Narayan Biswal,
Additional Standing Counsel
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
ORDER
Order No. 22.12.2025
01. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Petitioner in this writ petition prays for the following relief:
" Under the afore stated circumstances narrated here in
above the petitioners most humbly prays more fully that, this
Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit this writ
application, issue Rule of NISI calling upon the Opp. parties
to show cause.
A. As to why the impugned estimate of decretal dues
of Rs. 8,76,706/- as has been awarded/calculated by
the Special L.A.O-cum-R.R.O, Khariar, while
disposing of the application under Section 28-A of
L.A. Act, filed by the petitioner for Re-determination
of the amount of compensation on the basis of the
award/judgment dated 24.09.2018 passed by the
learned Senior Civil Judge, Nuapada, in L.A.R. Case
No. 50/2018, under Annexure-7 shall not be
interfered with and held as illegal, improper, unjust
and quashed, and,
B. As to why the opposite parties more particularly
opposite party no. 3 shall not be directed to
recalculate and re-estimate the decretal dues as has
been calculated and estimated as per the judgment
dated 24.09.2018 passed by the learned Senior Civil
Judge, Nuapada, in L.A.R. Case No. 50/2018 in
village Haripur, under Annexure-4, and,
C. And as to pass such other order or orders as this
Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper.
Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 23-Dec-2025 13:28:30
And on their failure to show cause or showing in
sufficient cause, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to make the
said RULE absolute by way of issuing appropriate writ or
writs, order or orders in the facts and circumstances of the
present case.
And for this act of your lordships kindness the
petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray."
3. Mr. Behera, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that
at the time of redetermination of compensation under Section 28-A
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity 'the Act'), the
Collector did not keep in mind the judgment dated 24th September,
2018 passed by learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Nuapada in
LAR No.50 of 2018, though the application under Section 28-A of
the Act was filed pursuant to the said judgment.
4. In course of hearing, Mr. Behera, learned counsel for the
Petitioner prays for withdrawal of the writ petition to avail the
remedy by filing an application in terms of Section 28(3) of the Act
to refer the matter to the Civil Court for enhancement of
compensation.
5. Mr. Biswal, learned Additional Standing Counsel does not
have any objection to the same.
6. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with an
observation that the petitioner, if so advised, may avail the remedy
under Section 28(3) of the Act for redressal of his grievances.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge
(Savitri Ratho)
Rojalin Judge
