Remanded

Bishnu Priya Sahu v. L.a.O.,Kalahandi

Orissa HC13 Sept 2024LAA/34/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against a land acquisition reference judgment dismissing a claim for enhanced compensation because the appellant had accepted the award under protest without objection. Following this Court's earlier decision, the impugned judgment was set aside and the matter remitted for reconsideration.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment set aside; matter remitted to the court below to reconsider and decide the enhancement claim within six months.

Bishnu Priya Sahu Vs L.a.O.,Kalahandi — Land Acquisition | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

LAA No.34 of 2022

¶3

Bishnu Priya Sahu ….

¶4

Appellant

¶5

Mr. M.K. Mohapatra, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

L.A. Officer, Kalahandi

¶8

…. Respondent

¶9

Mr. B. Panigrahi, Advocate

¶10

CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA

ORDER

13.09.2024

Order No. 04.

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶15

2. Learned Counsel for the Appellant, drawing attention of this Court to the impugned judgment dated 30.06.2022 passed in LAR & R Case No.09 of 2022, submits that though the present Appellant received compensation under protest, because of which a reference was made to the Court below under section 64 of the Act, 2013, while answering the point no.1 in the said case, the referral Court erroneously answered the said point against the Appellant and dismissed the Reference Petition on the ground that the present Appellant (Petitioner before the Court below) accepted the awarded amount and had never objected the same either on Ext. E and Ext. D (C.C. Voucher).

¶16

3. Drawing attention of this Court to the judgment passed by this Court reported in 2003 (Supp. I) OLR 388 (Sujata Senapati Vs. L.A. Zone Officer, Khurda Road,

¶17

Boudh) , learned Counsel for the Appellant submits, the

¶18

case of the Appellant is squarely covered by the said judgment of this Court.

¶19

4. The said submission made by the learned Counsel for the Appellant is not disputed by the learned State Counsel. 5. Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 30.06.2022 passed by the referral Court in LAR & R Case No.09 of 2022 is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Court below to reconsider the said case on merit for enhancement of compensation in accordance with law and dispose of the same within a period of six months from the date of communication of the certified copy of this order.

¶20

6. Urgent certified copy of the said order be granted on proper application as per rules.

(S. K. MISHRA)

JUDGE

Banita

Signature Not Verified

¶25

Digitally Signed Signed by: BANITA PRIYADARSHINI PALEI Designation: SR. STENOGRAPHER Reason: AUTHENTICATION Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 14-Sep-2024 15:48:11

¶26

Page 2 of 2

Bishnu Priya Sahu v. L.a.O.,Kalahandi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bishnu Priya Sahu v. L.a.O.,Kalahandi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dusmanta Kumar Das Vs the Thasildar, Kendrapara

Sappa Mahalaxmi Vs Land Aq.Officer

Nilima Kumari Debnath Vs State Level Scrutiny Committee, Cuttack

Spl.Land Aq.Officer Vs Sanatan Barik

Trilochan Sahu Vs Land Ac.Zone Officer

Basanti Kumari Sethi Vs State of Odisha