Petitioner seeks compensation for alleged land acquisition for NH-16. Court finds land was not acquired by respondents. Petition dismissed.
null
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.3585 of 2020
Bibhuti Bhusan Sahoo
….. Petitioner
Mr. Jayadeba Behera, Advocate
Vs.
National Highway Authority of India & Another
Opposite Parties
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
ORDER
04.08.2023
Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 08.
Order No.
“ 4. That the plot mentioned in the instant petition has neither been acquired nor is going to be acquired by the Opposite Parties, hence, there does not arise any question of giving compensation to the Petitioner, rather the Petitioner should be penalized for creating trouble in Government Project. Hence, the instant writ is liable to be dismissed as being devoid of any cause of action against these Opposite Parties.”
neither been acquired nor is going to be acquired by the Opposite Parties, the question of compensation does not arise at this stage. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition merits no consideration and the same is dismissed.
(DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE
Aswini
(M.S. RAMAN) JUDGE
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Signed by: ASWINI KUMAR SETHY Designation: PA(SECRETARY-IN-CHARGE) Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUT TACK Date: 04-Aug-2023 18:17:48
1 issue framed by the court
Whether compensation for land acquisition is payable where the land has not been or is not going to be acquired.
Bibhuti Bhusan Sahoo
National Highway Authority of India
Another
B.R. Sarangi
Murahari Sri Raman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
