Orissa High Court
Krushna Chandra Sahoo vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 16 October, 2025
Bench: K.R. Mohapatra, Savitri Ratho
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.22694 of 2025
Krushna Chandra Sahoo .... Petitioner
Mr.Dibyaranjan Behera. Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and Others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. Sibanarayan Biswal,
Additional Standing Counsel
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
ORDER
Order No. 16.10.2025
02. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Petitioner, in this writ petition, prays for a direction to release
compensation in terms of the judgment passed in LAA No.143 of
2010 and order passed in W.P.(C) No.2804 of 2023 by this Court.
3. Mr. Behera, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that
pursuant to the acquisition of the land of the Petitioner in Plot No.209
under Khata No.78 to an extent of Ac.0.17 dec., L.A. Case No.2/1995
was initiated and award under section 11(1) of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (for brevity, 'the Act') was passed. Being not satisfied, the
Petitioner along with other co-sharers filed an application under
section 18 of the Act and the matter was referred to the learned Civil
Judge (Senior Division), Bhadrak for adjudication. Accordingly, L.A.
Misc. Case No.227 of 1996 was initiated on his file. The reference
under section 18 was disposed of vide judgment dated 23.06.1998
enhancing the compensation. In the meantime, land losers whose land
was acquired under the same notification under section 4(1) of the Act
filed LAA No.143 of 2010 before this Court under section 54 of the
Act assailing the judgment passed in reference filed by them and land
acquisition compensation was further enhanced by this Court. Some
of the land losers, who are similarly placed without filing appeal under
Section 54 of the Act filed W.P.(C) No.2803 of 2023 to dispose of
their representations filed before the Collector for enhancement of
compensation in terms of LAA No.143 of 2010. On agreement of
learned counsel for the parties, this Court vide order dated 07.02.2023
directed the Collector to consider the representation filed by the
Petitioner therein and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with
law within a period of three months from the date of production of
certified copy of the said order.
4. It is submitted by Mr. Behera, learned counsel for the Petitioner
that the Petitioner stands in a similar footing. It is also submitted by
Mr. Behera, learned counsel for the Petitioner that pursuant to the
direction of this Court representation was favourably disposed of in
favour of the Petitioners therein and enhanced compensation in terms
of LAA No.143 of 2010 was paid to them. Thus, it is submitted that
since the Petitioner stands in a similar footing and has also filed a
representation before Collector, Bhadrak (Opposite Party No.2) on
11.07.2025 (Annexure-5), a direction may be made for disposal of his
representation.
5. Mr. Biswal, learned Additional Standing Counsel submits that
he will take instruction in the matter.
6. Taking into consideration the submission made by learned
counsel for the Petitioner, this Court finds that the Petitioner was
neither a party to LAA No.143 of 2010 nor W.P.(C) No.2804 of 2023.
There is no sufficient material to show that the Petitioner stands in a
similar footing with that of the Appellants and Petitioners in the
aforesaid LAA No.143 of 2010 and W.P.(C) No.2804 of 2023
respectively. Further the Petitioner has not availed remedy under
section 54 of the Act to claim for higher compensation as yet, if he is
not satisfied with the judgment passed in the reference under section
18 of the Act.
Thus, we are not inclined to grant the prayer made by the
Petitioner in the present writ petition.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. It is, however,
observed that dismissal of the writ petition shall not be a bar for the
Petitioner to work out the statutory remedy in accordance with law.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge
(Savitri Ratho)
Judge
Himansu
Signed by: HIMANSU SEKHAR DASH
