Dismissed¶19

Kamal Lochan Talab v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC15 Mar 2024WP(C)/30833/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

PIL maintainability; displaced person rehabilitation; Upper Kolab Irrigation Project 1975; Colony No. 7; inadequate rehabilitation land; writ petition dismissed for lack of bona fide; Kamal Lochan Talab v. State of Odisha; High Court of Orissa at Cuttack; W.P.(C) 30833/2023.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition lacks bona fide: consequent upon the displacement in 1975, the petitioner and other similarly situated persons were already rehabilitated. ¶18

Kamal Lochan Talab Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 30833 of 2023

¶3

Kamal Lochan Talab

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. H.K. Mohanta, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

…. State of Odisha and others Opposite Parties Mr. Debakanta Mohanty, A.G.A.

¶8

CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

ORDER

Order No.

15.03.2024

This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

¶14

The petitioner claims to be a resident of an area which was acquired for Upper Kolab Irrigation Project in 1975. It is evident from the averments in the present writ petition filed in the nature of PIL that the persons who stood displaced because of the said Project were rehabilitated in Colony No.7.

¶15

The petitioner has approached this Court claiming to be representing other similarly displaced persons asserting that during the course of time, families of the said displaced persons have grown up and that the land given to them for their rehabilitation was insufficient or inadequate even at that point in time.

¶16

Learned counsel representing the opposite parties-State of Odisha submits that the petitioner himself claims to be a displaced person and he cannot claim to be espousing the cause of others for their rehabilitation. He accordingly submits that this writ petition in the nature of PIL is not maintainable.

¶17

Page 1 of 2

¶18

After having gone through the pleadings in the writ petition, in our considered opinion, it lacks bona fide for the reason that apparently consequent upon displacement in 1975, the petitioner and other similarly situated persons were rehabilitated. On the ground that lands given to them to rehabilitate them were inadequate and in course of time, the families of the displaced persons have grown up in number, the petitioner cannot maintain this PIL, after lapse of nearly 46 years.

¶19

This writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.

¶20

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh)
Chief Justice
(M.S. Raman)
Judge

¶21

S.K. Guin/P.A.

¶22

Signature Not Verified

¶23

Page 2 of 2

¶24

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBASH KUMAR GUIN Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 19-Mar-2024 11:01:27

Kamal Lochan Talab v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamal Lochan Talab v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shyam Vs Commissioner

Sanjit Kumar Turuk Vs Secy. Ministry of Environment, New Delhi

Kishor Kishan Vs Dr. Gavali Parag Harshad, I.A.S.

Madhaba Chandra Sahoo Vs Manas Ranjan Bhoi,Tahasildar,Odagaon

Shilalipi Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Rama Chandra Sahoo Vs A.O. Cum Asst. Conservator of Forest, Athagarh,Cuttack