Disposed

Jema Pradhan v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC3 Jul 2024WP(C)/3383/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged delayed disbursement of land acquisition compensation. The Court observed land was acquired and compensation determined. It held disputes over adequacy await the appropriate forum and lack of disbursement for some petitioners must be directed to relevant authorities.

What did the court decide?

Petitions disposed of; petitioners directed to approach appropriate authority for disbursement of pending compensation.

Jema Pradhan Vs State of Odisha — Land Acquisition | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 3383 of 2022

¶2

Jema Pradhan & Others

¶3

Petitioners

¶4

Mr. U.K. Samal, Advocate

¶5

Vs.

¶6

State of Odisha & Others

¶7

….. Opposite Parties

¶8

State Counsel Mr. D. Mohanty, Advocate (O.P.3)

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI

¶11

MR. JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

ORDER

03.07.2024

Order No.

03.

This matter is taken up by hybrid mode.

¶17

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶18

The petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking the statutory benefits as due and admissible to them.

¶19

Mr. U.K. Samal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the land of the petitioners have been acquired and handed over to the MCL which has taken in possession of the same and mining work has already been started over such lands, but so far as the compensation amount is concerned, the same has been disbursed in respect of the some of the petitioners and has not been disbursed in favour of other petitioners. It is contended that so far as disbursement is concerned, if the petitioners have any grievance with regard to the adequacy or inadequacy of the compensation amount, they may be permitted to approach the appropriate forum. In respect of the petitioners in whose favour the compensation amount has not been disbursed, the authorities may be directed to disburse the same in their favour.

¶20

Page 1 of 3

¶21

Learned counsel for the State wanted to take instruction as to whether the compensation amount has been disbursed in favour of the petitioners or not. However, he contended that it reveals that in some of the cases, the compensation amount has been paid and in some of the cases, the same has not been deposited by the requisitioning authority. He further contended that so far as the adequacy or inadequacy of the compensation amount is concerned, it is open to the petitioners to approach the appropriate authority in accordance with law.

¶22

Mr. D. Mohanty, learned counsel for MCL contended that the land has been acquired, the compensation amount has been determined and the same has been deposited with the State authority. According to them, in some cases, the disbursement has been made and in some cases, disbursement has not been made. Therefore, it is open to the petitioners to approach the authority for disbursement of the compensation in whose favour, the same has not been made. So far as adequacy or inadequacy of the compensation amount is concerned, it is open to them to approach the authority in accordance with law.

¶23

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record, it is evident that the land of the petitioners have been acquired, compensation has been determined and in some cases disbursement has been made in favour of some of the petitioners. So far as adequacy or inadequacy of the compensation amount is concerned, it is open to those petitioners to approach the appropriate authority in accordance with law. In respect of the petitioners in whose favour the compensation amount has not been disbursed, it is open to them to approach the appropriate authority for disbursement of the same. After such disbursement is made, it is also open to them to seek their remedies claiming higher compensation if any.

¶24

Page 2 of 3

¶25

S.Sasmal

¶26

With the above observation and direction all the writ petitions stand disposed of.

¶27

(DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE

¶28

(G. SATAPATHY) JUDGE

¶29

Signature Not Verified

¶30

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASMITA SASMAL Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 04-Jul-2024 12:41:34

¶31

Page 3 of 3

Jema Pradhan v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jema Pradhan v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Principal Commissioner,Gst and Central Excise, Bbsr. Vs M/S Aarti Steels Ltd.

M/S Nanda Infra Construction Pvt. Ltd., Angul Vs State of Odisha

M/S. Nanda Infra Construction Pvt. Ltd. Angul Vs State of Odisha

Union of India Vs Pradip Kumar Dash

Aakanksha Enterprises, New Delhi Vs State of Odisha

M/S.Sitaram Agrawal Vs State of Odisha