Disposed

Sunil Mohapatra v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC4 Jan 2023WP(C)/134/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition filed against a show-cause notice under the Land Acquisition Act, 2013. The Court held it was incumbent on the petitioner to approach the competent authority and seek interim relief against the demolition order before approaching the Court.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands disposed of; it was incumbent upon the petitioner to file a reply to the notice along with an application for interim relief before the authority.

Sunil Mohapatra Vs State of Odisha — Land Acquisition | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P (C) No. 134 of 2023

¶2

Sunil Mohapatra

¶3

….. Petitioner

¶4

Mr. P.K. Das, Advocate

¶5

Vs.

¶6

State of Odisha and others

¶7

….. Opposite parties

¶8

State Counsel

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI MR. JUSTICE B.P. SATAPATHY

¶11

ORDER

¶12

04.01.2023

¶13

Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶14

¶15

Heard Mr. P.K. Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. H.M. Dhal, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties.

¶16

The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the notice to show-cause dated 15.12.2022, by which the petitioner has been called upon to appear in person or by a pleader duly instructed on 10.01.2023 in L.A. Case No.265 of 2022.

¶17

Mr. P.K. Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that even though notice to show-cause was issued to appear before the authority on 10.01.2023, but verbally opposite party no.3 is going to demolish the house of the petitioner complying the principle of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land

¶18

Page 1 of 3

¶19

Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

¶20

Mr. H.M. Dhal, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties contended that since the petitioner has approached this Court against the notice to show-cause, the writ petition is premature one. He also contended that the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking direction to the Collector, Jajpur not to demolish the residential house of the petitioner through opposite party no.3 before compliance of the provisions contained under Section 38 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, but once notice to show-cause has been issued, the petitioner has to appear in person and make grievance before that forum instead of approaching this Court.

¶21

Considering the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, it appears that in apprehension the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this writ petition. As such, he may have approached the Collector, Jajpur by filing an application praying interim protection not to demolish his residential building through opposite party no.3 before compliance of Section 38 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Needless to say, nothing has been placed on record to show that action has been taken by the authority for demolition of the residential house of the petitioner. In absence of any such

¶22

Page 2 of 3

¶23

documents, this Court is not able to appreciate as to how the competent authority can go for demolition without following due procedure. However, it is incumbent upon the petitioner to appear before the authority and file reply along with an application for grant of interim relief. Though it is contended that the authority has no power to pass order of interim protection, that itself cannot be sustained in the eye of law. However, it is open to the petitioner to file his reply to the notice to show-cause along with an application for interim relief so that the authority can consider the same in accordance with law.

¶24

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

¶25

Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

¶26

Ashok

¶27

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

¶28

Page 3 of 3

Sunil Mohapatra v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Mohapatra 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

Abdul Lokman Khan Vs Principal Secy. to Govt.of Odisha, R and DM Dept., Bbsr

Nitya Kishore Das Vs State of Odisha

Judhisthir Pruseth Vs State

Maheswar Behera Vs State of Odisha

Narendranath Sethi @ Mohapatra Vs State of Odisha

Parameswar Patel Vs Collector,Sundargarh