Dismissed

Gitanjali Sahoo v. L.A.O. and Competent Authority, NH-42, Cuttack

Orissa HC8 Dec 2022WP(C)/27677/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa disposed of a writ petition seeking directions to release land acquisition compensation despite pending apportionment proceedings. The court held that petitioners could approach the District Judge in the existing reference case for apportionment.

What did the court decide?

None; parties directed to approach District Judge in pending NHLA (REF) Case No. 01/2022 for apportionment orders.

Gitanjali Sahoo Vs L.A.O. and Competent Authority, NH-42… — Land Acquisition | Orissa HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P (C) No. 27677 of 2022

¶3

Gitanjali Sahoo and others L. A.O and Competent Authority, NH-42 Cuttack and another.

¶4

Petitioners

¶5

Mr. S.P. Das, Advocate

¶6

Vs.

¶7

….. Opposite Parties

¶8

Mr. A. Das, Advocate (O.P.2)

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI

¶11

MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

¶12

ORDER

¶13

08.12.2022

¶14

Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 01. 2. Heard Mr. S.P. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. A. Das, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

¶15

The petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking direction to opposite party no.1 to release the compensation determined under Annexure-2 in favour of the petitioners keeping in view the affidavit under Annexure-4 series. The petitioners have further prayed for a direction to the effect that pendency of proceeding before the learned District Judge with regard to apportionment shall not be a bar for the Land Acquisition Officer to release the compensation amount.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners and the co-sharers have gone for an amicable settlement by executing affidavit under Annexure-4 series. Therefore, taking into consideration of the said amicable settlement, the amount of compensation should have been released in favour of the petitioners.

¶17

Mr. A. Das, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2 by

¶18

Page 1 of 2

¶19

filing a counter affidavit contended that the matter is pending before the learned District Judge, Cuttack in NHLA (REF) Case No. 01/2022 under Section 3H(4) of the N.H. Act, 1956. Therefore, if the petitioners are claiming for the apportionment of the compensation amount and release of the same in their favour on the basis of the amicable settlement, they may approach the said forum, so that the matter can be disposed of in accordance with law.

¶20

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, since the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement and the petitioners claims the apportionment of the compensation amount and release of the same in their favour on the basis of the amicable settlement, it is open to the petitioners to approach the learned District Judge, Cuttack in NHLA (REF) Case No. 01/2022 under Section 3H(4) of the N.H. Act, 1956, so that learned District Judge can pass appropriate order in accordance with law.

¶21

With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶22

Arun

¶23

(DR. B.R. SARANGI)
JUDGE
(B. P. SATAPATHY)
JUDGE

¶24

Page 2 of 2

Gitanjali Sahoo v. L.A.O. and Competent Authority, NH-42, Cuttack

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gitanjali Sahoo v. L.A.O. and Competent Authority, NH-42, Cuttack

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

M/S. Fast Communication Vs State of Orissa

Thakit Kujur Vs Collector and District Magistrate, Jharsuguda

Omm Construction, Angul Vs Union of India

Bhagyadhar Pradhan Vs Land Acquisition Officer and Competent Authority, Ctc

Bansidhar Sahoo Vs Land Acquisition Officer and Competent Authority, Ctc

Chandra Prava Mohanty Vs State of Odisha