[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Chandramani Pradhan vs State Of Odisha And Others ... Opposite ... on 20 April, 2026
Author: K.R. Mohapatra
Bench: K.R. Mohapatra
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 21-Apr-2026 14:17:00
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 8171 of 2026
Chandramani Pradhan ... Petitioner
Ashok Kumar Behera, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others ... Opposite Parties
Mr. Siba Narayan Biswal,
Additional Standing Counsel
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
ORDER
Order No. 20.04.2026
2. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Petitioner in this writ petition prays for the following
relief:-
"It Is therefore most respectfully prayed that this
Hon'ble Court would be graciously pleased to allow this
writ petition with a direction to the 0pp. Parties to consider
the claim of the petitioner for grant of lease of land as
described above on return of part consideration cash
compensation In lieu of the land lost by the petitioner in
Rengali Multipurpose Dam Project, in view of the provision
of By-Law of Rengali Multipurpose Dam Project Committee
as well as the order of the Director, Water Resource
Department (RR) under annexure-3, like other similar
situated persons who have been granted land on lease;
And may pass any other order/orders as may be
deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice;
And for this act of kindness, the petitioner shall as in
duty bound ever pray;
2. It is submitted by Mr. Behera, learned counsel for the
Petitioner that after acquisition of his land for Rengali
Multipurpose Dam Project, he has accepted a part of
compensation. Similarly situated persons have been granted land
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 21-Apr-2026 14:17:00
// 2 //
in lieu of land. Hence, the Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition to
change his option by retuning the part compensation amount he
has received and prays for settlement of the piece of government
land occupied by him by way of lease.
2.1 It is further submitted that the Petitioner is a landless
person and he has no other property to reside. Since similarly
situated persons have been settled with government land,
Petitioner should be extended with the same benefit. He also drew
attention to order dated 1st February, 2021 passed in W.P.(C)
No.38837 of 2020 in which, this Court directed the Collector and
District Magistrate Deogarh, Resettlement and Rehabilitation
Officer, Rengali Irrigation Multipurpose Project in the district of
Angul and Zone Officer, Rengali Irrigation Multipurpose Project
in the district of Deogarh to consider the representation of the
Petitioner pursuant to Government decision dated 9 th February,
2015 within a period of three months from the production of such
order. Accordingly, application of the Petitioner was entertained
by the authorities and the Zone Officer, vide order dated 22 nd
April, 2022, rejected the same.
2.2 On perusal of order dated 22nd April, 2022, it reveals that
the Petitioner sought to return the compensation he had received
and in lieu thereof he sought for settlement of the government land
in his occupation. On perusal of the said order, it is apparent that
thirty-five persons similarly situated with that of the Petitioner
received cash compensation in lieu of their land in terms of the R
and R benefits, as there was acute shortage of government land. It
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 21-Apr-2026 14:17:00
// 3 //
is also observed therein that if the change of option of the
Petitioner is entertained at that stage, similarly situated persons
who have already received cash compensation in lieu of their land
under R and R benefit scheme would also seek for change of their
option and it would unsettle a settled situation.
3. It is, however, submitted by Mr. Behera, learned counsel
that three persons have got alternate land in lieu of acquisition of
their land. That cannot be a ground to consider the case of the
Petitioner at such a belated stage, as his land was acquired in the
year 1984. Further, the Petitioner appears to be an encroacher of a
piece of government land for agriculture and not for residence, as
alleged by him. Thus, an encroacher cannot be rewarded with
settlement of an alternate land who has already received cash
compensation (may be in part) in lieu of land, as submitted. The
said order dated 22nd April, 2022 passed by the Zone Officer has
also not been challenged in this writ petition and hence the same
attained finality.
4. In that view of the matter, we find no merit in the writ
petition, which stands dismissed accordingly.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge
(S.K. Mishra)
Judge
s.s.satapathy
