Dismissed

Kashinath Samantara v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC6 Apr 2021WP(C)/4075/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court did not grant the principal relief of directing compensation disbursement to the petitioner without a civil suit. Instead, it directed the Commissioner to deposit any compensation paid into a bank account if a civil suit is filed within three months. The prayer to restrain acquisition was dismissed as speculative.

What did the court decide?

Directed authorities to deposit compensation in a bank account if a civil suit is filed within three months; refused to restrain acquisition.

Kashinath Samantara Vs State of Odisha — Land Acquisition | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.(C) No.4075 of 2021

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

SHRI S.K. MISHRA,J. AND MISS SAVITRI RATHO,J.

¶4

Kashinath Samantara … Petitioner vs. State of Odisha & others … Opposite Parties For the petitioner … Mr. N. Lenka, Advocate For the O.P. Nos. 1, 4 & 5 … Mr. A.R. Dash Addl. Govt. Advocate For the O. P. Nos.2 & 3 … Mr. A.K. Nath, Advocate

¶5

06.04.2021

¶6

The case is taken up by video conferencing mode.

¶7

Heard Mr. Niranjan Lenka, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Amit Kumar Nath, learned counsel for the Commissioner of Endowments. We have also heard Mr. A.R. Dash, learned Addl. Government Advocate.

¶8

The petitioner has prayed in this writ application to issue a writ of mandamus directing the opposite parties to disburse the land acquisition compensation in respect of the property covered under Hal Plot No.670 Ac. 0.115 decimal under Hal Khata No.711 corresponding to Sabik Plot No.595 and Sabik Khata No.615/139 in favour of the petitioner and also to direct the opposite party nos. 3 to 4 not to acquire the said land if it is not coming within the ceiling limit as fixed by the authority.

¶9

Admittedly, as per Annexure-2, the land in question

¶10

is recorded in the name of Shree Gelabai Thakurani Bije

¶11

¶12

Nijagaon Marfat-Endowment Commissioner. The petitioner claims that the land was originally recorded in the settlement of 1929-30 in the name of his great grand-father. Though a zerox copy of the Khatian is annexed as Annexure-1, no document in the petition reflects any relay in Hal-Sabik plot numbers to show prima facie that the land in question in fact was recorded in the name of the predecessors of interest of the petitioner in the previous settlement. In any case, wrong recording of RoR in the name of another person is a matter, which cannot be gone into in a writ application as it is a disputed fact and requires evidence. The petitioner is, therefore, given liberty to agitate this matter in the appropriate civil court having pecuniary as well as territorial jurisdiction over the matter regarding ownership of the land for the purpose of receiving compensation.

¶13

The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the question of disbursement of compensation of land. In this case, the petitioner contends that the Commissioner of Endowment will be disbursed with the compensation money and in such event, the petitioner shall be rendered remediless. To obviate any such precarious situation, we hereby direct that in case the opposite party no.3 and opposite party no.4 disburse the compensation amount for the land in question described above to the opposite party no.2-Commissioner of Endowment, Odisha, Bhubaneswar, the Commissioner of Endowment shall deposit the same in a fixed interest bearing account in any of the nationalized Banks and communicate such fact to the petitioner. Such deposit shall be subject to the result of any civil proceeding that may be initiated by the petitioner within a period of three months. If no civil proceeding or judicial proceeding is initiated within three months from today, the above stipulation will not be

¶14

¶15

operative.

¶16

As far as the 2^nd prayer is concerned with regard to not acquiring the land, we are of the opinion that it is a speculative prayer as the petitioner has not established even prima facie that the land in question is not within a ceiling limit fixed by the authority of Project Development of Heritage Security Corridor around Sri Jagannath Temple, Puri.

¶17

With such observation, the Writ Petition is disposed

¶18

of.

¶19

As the restrictions due to the COVID-19 situation are continuing, the learned counsel for the parties may utilize a soft copy of this order available in the High Court’s website or print out thereof at par with certified copy in the manner prescribed, vide Court’s Notice No.4587, dated 25^th March, 2020.

¶20

pcd

¶21

(S.K. Mishra) Judge

¶22

(Savitri Ratho) Judge

¶23

¶24

pcd

Kashinath Samantara v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kashinath Samantara 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

Bhagaban @ Kalandi Behera Vs Commissioner of Endowments, Odisha

Niranjan Bhoi Vs Surendra Kumar

Nilabara @ Nilambar Pujhari Vs Surendra Kumar

Bhagaban Ghiwala Vs State and Ors.

Rupsingh Majhi Vs State of Odisha

Jagadish Majhi Vs State of Odisha