Dismissed

Laibani Mahananda @ Kushal v. State of Orissa

Orissa HC19 Dec 2022WP(C)/33092/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by a daughter to claim her share of land acquisition compensation recorded in her father's name. The High Court dismissed the petition as it found an existing family dispute regarding the share, stating compensation cannot be disbursed until the share is determined. Liberty granted to approach appropriate forum.

What did the court decide?

None granted; liberty granted to approach appropriate forum for determination of grievances.

Laibani Mahananda @ Kushal Vs State of Orissa — Land Acquisition | Orissa HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.33092 of 2022

¶3

Laibani Mahananda @ Kushal

¶4

….. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. K. Dang, Advocate

¶6

Vs.

¶7

State of Odisha & Ors.

¶8

….. Opposite Parties

¶9

Mr. P.K. Muduli, AGA

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI

¶12

MR. JUSTICE B.P. SATAPATHY

ORDER

19.12.2022

Order No.

This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

¶18

Heard Mr. K. Dang, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. P.K. Muduli, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the opposite-opposite parties.

¶19

The petitioner has filed this writ petition claiming her share for acquisition of land, recorded in the name of her father.

¶20

Mr. K. Dang, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the land having stood recorded in the name of the father of the petitioner, has received compensation amount, whereas the petitioner has not been paid anything.

¶21

Mr. P.K. Muduli, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties contended that since there is dispute between the father and daughter with regard to share of compensation amount, unless the same is determined, the question of release of share does not arise.

¶22

Considering the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, this Court finds that the dispute lies between the father and daughter and, as such, the land having stood recorded in the name of father, he has received the compensation amount. So far as the building standing on the land is concerned, the same has to be considered by the authority concerned. The share amount cannot be disbursed in favour of the petitioner unless her share is determined.

¶23

Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum ventilating her grievances.

¶24

With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed

¶25

Alok

¶26

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

Laibani Mahananda @ Kushal v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laibani Mahananda @ Kushal v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manas Ranjan Das Vs Union of India

Urmila Singh Vs the Union of India

Mala Majhi Vs State of Odisha

Rutwicka Rutuparna Khadanga Vs State of Odisha

Odisha Energy Distribution and Construction Pvt. Ltd., Bbsr Vs Md., Orissa Small Industries Corp., Cuttack

Dr. a.Tanuja Vs State of Odisha