Disposed

Sukanta Kuamr Das v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC3 Nov 2020WP(C)/28377/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On extraordinary vakil instruction due to COVID-19 lockdown, the High Court of Odisha disposed of a writ petition challenging land acquisition proceedings. The Petitioner contended that construction of a bridge proceeded without due process under the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 and RFCTLAR Act, 2013.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Collector to dispose of the Petitioner's representation within three months after affording an opportunity of hearing.

Sukanta Kuamr Das Vs State of Odisha — Land Acquisition | Orissa HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.(C) No. 28377 of 2020

¶2

Sukanta Kuamr Das … Petitioner

¶3

Versus

¶4

State of Odisha and others … Opp. Parties

¶5

03.11.2020 In view of extraordinary situation arose out of COVID-19 lockdown, the matter is taken up through video conferencing.

¶6

Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

¶7

The grievance of the petitioner is that without following due process under the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLAR & R Act, 2013), the Opposite Parties are taking steps to construct a bridge over the land of the petitioner.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed representation vide Annexure-3 Series before the Collector, Jagatsinghpur.

¶9

Regard being had to the fact and submission, nature and relief sought for, the writ petition is disposed of directing the Collector, Jagatsinghpur (Opposite Party No.3) to dispose of the representation of the petitioner vide Annexure-3 series within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified or soft copy of

¶10

¶11

this order after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.

¶12

We feel, pursuant to the observation that if no due procedure for the aforesaid work has been followed, due compensation be offered to the petitioner. However, if the work has progressed in the line of the provisions contained in the aforesaid Acts, the work may continue without affecting the land of the petitioner.

¶13

The petitioner is directed to supply a copy of the writ petition along with all the Annexures to Opposite Party No.3 for convenient and reference to Annexure-3 series.

¶14

As Lock-down period is continuing for COVID-19, learned counsel for the parties may utilize the soft copy of this order available in the High Court’s website or print out thereof at par with certified copies in the manner prescribed, vide Court’s Notice No.4587 dated 25.3.2020.

¶15

………………………..

¶16

C. R. Dash, J.

¶17

….……………………….. S. K. Panigrahi, J.

¶18

AKP

Sukanta Kuamr Das v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukanta Kuamr Das v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sk.Ahemad Vs Authorized Officer

Ganesh Chandra Behera Vs State of Odisha

3719/PRATAP Ghose Security Agency Vs Union of India

Union of India Vs Bibhupada Dash

Union of India Vs Prafulla Kumar Guru

Sirish Chandra Mohanty Vs Govt.of Odisha