Petitioner challenged land acquisition for a Sugar Industry, claiming no establishment of purpose and utilization for agro industry. Court found compensation already paid, dismissing the writ petition as the claim to return land or further compensation does not subsist.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 25833 of 2014
Choudhury Sridhar ….. Petitioner Ms. P. Mohanty on behalf of Mr. P.P. Mohanty, Adv.
Vs.
State of Odisha and others
….. Opposite Parties Mr. H.M. Dhal, AGA
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMAN
ORDER 15.03.2023
Page 1 of 2
appearing for the State-opposite parties contended that even if the land of the petitioner was acquired for the purpose of setting up of Sugar Industry, but the same has not been established and, as such, the land has been utilized for the purpose of agro industry. Therefore, the question of return of the land to the petitioner does not arise. So far as compensation is concerned, the petitioner has already been compensated in the year 1991-92, which has already been acknowledged by him. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner with regard to either pay compensation or return the land does not survive.
Ashok
Page 2 of 2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to the return of acquired land or alternative land since the land was not utilized for the intended purpose of Sugar Industry.
Whether the claim for compensation survives when the petitioner has already been paid compensation in 1991-92.
Choudhury Sridhar
State of Odisha and others
B.R. Sarangi
M.S. Raman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
