Dismissed

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

Orissa HC3 Jan 2023WP(C)/36/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a notice to show-cause in land acquisition proceedings. The court directed the petitioner to appear before the authority and apply for interim relief instead of approaching the Court, noting no evidence of imminent demolition was placed on record.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to appear before authority and apply for interim relief; writ petition disposed.

Abdul Lokman Khan Vs Principal Secy. to Govt.of Odisha, R… — Land Acquisition | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P (C) No. 36 of 2023

¶2

Abdul Lokman Khan

¶3

….. Petitioner Mr. S.S.K. Nayak, Advocate

¶4

¶5

Principal Secretary to Govt. of ….. Opposite parties Odisha, Revenue and Disaster State Counsel Management Deptt. & Ors CORAM:

¶6

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

ORDER

03.01.2023

Order No. 1

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶11

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

¶12

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.266 of 2022.

¶13

Mr. S.S.K. Nayak, 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 the Tahasildar, Jajpur is going to demolish the house of the petitioner complying the principle

¶14

Page 1 of 3

¶15

of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

¶16

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 the Tahasildar, Jajpur 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. 6. 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 the Tahasildar, Jajpur 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

¶17

Page 2 of 3

¶18

the residential house of the petitioner. In absence of any such 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.

¶19

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

¶20

Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

¶21

Alok

¶22

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

¶23

Page 3 of 3

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Laxman Kumar Gouda Vs Union of India

Mahammed Riyaz Uddin Vs Union of India

Abdul Solemn Khan Vs Union of India

Nitya Kishore Das Vs State of Odisha

Judhisthir Pruseth Vs State

Ratnamani Moharana @ Vs Govt.of India