Sudarsan Naik Vs State of Odisha, Revenue Dept

W.P.(C) No. 4956 of 2019

W.P.(C) Nos. 4956 & 10551 of 2019

16.12.2019

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.Adnam Sarmodi, learned counsel for the intervenor and Mr.D.Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for opposite party No.4-Cuttack Development Authority.

¶5

Petitioners in both the writ petition seek for a direction to opposite parties to pay the compensation as per the present market rate and other benefits under the Rehabilitation and Resettlement under the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

¶6

Since common question of law is involved in both the writ petitions they are heard together and disposed of by this common order.

¶7

ks

¶8

Earlier petitioners along with other persons have approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 3849 of 2008, 3646 of 1988, 9964, 1017, 10087 of 2017, 6681 of 2017, 10332 of 2017, 10876 of 2017, 10877 of 2017, 10079 of 2017 and Civil Review No. 154 of 2011 which were disposed of as stated in the writ petition. Challenging the same some of the applicants have preferred SLP before the Apex Court. The SLP was remitted back to the Tahasildar, Barang as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners. After remand the Tahasildar, Barang rejected the claim of the petitioners. However they have filed appeal before the Appellate Authority as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners and the same is still pending for adjudication.

¶9

Since the appeal is pending for adjudiciation in

¶10

2

¶11

case the appeal will be allowed by the Appellate Authority in such event the petitioners shall approach the Court for necessary relief.

¶12

Accordingly both the writ petitions are disposed of.

¶13

……………… S. Panda, J

¶14

S.K.Sahoo, J