Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Laba Buda Vs State of Orissa — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Home
Orissa HC
2024
Laba Buda Vs State of OrissaLaba Buda v. State of Orissa

Disposed¶26

Laba Buda v. State of Orissa

Land acquisition – Compensation disbursement

Orissa HC2 May 2024WP(C)/3479/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa High Court, W.P.(C) No. 3479 of 2018, decided 02.05.2024 (B.R. Sarangi and G. Satapathy, JJ.). Petitioners (including Laba Buda) whose lands were acquired and handed over to MCL sought statutory benefits/disbursement of compensation. Court found compensation determined and deposited with State authority, disbursed in some cases only; disposed of writ petitions granting liberty to approach appropriate authority for disbursement and for claims of higher compensation/adequacy. Keywords: land acquisition, compensation, disbursement, MCL, adequate compensation, writ disposed with liberty.

What did the court decide?

All writ petitions disposed of with the observation and direction that petitioners may approach the appropriate authority for disbursement of undisbursed compensation, for claims of adequacy/higher compensation in accordance with law.

Why is it important?

The court recorded as evident that the petitioners' lands were acquired, compensation was determined, and disbursement was made in favour of only some of the petitioners. ¶23

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

All writ petitions disposed of with the observation and direction that petitioners may approach the appropriate authority for disbursement of undisbursed compensation, for claims of adequacy/higher compensation in accordance with law.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners are entitled to a direction for disbursement of the compensation amount determined for their acquired lands, in cases where it has not been disbursed. +1 more

Court's answer

The court recorded as evident that the petitioners' lands were acquired, compensation was determined, and disbursement was made in favour of only some of the petitioners.

Ratio / Principle

On adequacy or inadequacy of the compensation amount, the petitioners are free to approach the appropriate authority in accordance with law.

Key takeaways

Petitioners in whose favour compensation has not been disbursed may approach the appropriate authority for its disbursement, and after disbursement they remain free to seek remedies claiming higher compensation, if any.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Land acquisition – Compensation disbursement – Petitioners' lands acquired and handed over to MCL with mining commenced; compensation determined and deposited with State authority but disbursed only in respect of some petitioners – High Court of Orissa declines to direct payment itself and disposes of the writ petitions with liberty to the petitioners to approach the appropriate authority for disbursement of undisbursed compensation, and, after disbursement, to seek remedies claiming higher compensation; grievances as to adequacy or inadequacy of compensation left to be agitated before the appropriate authority in accordance with law.

A

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No. 3479 of 2018

Laba Buda and others

Petitioners

Mr. U.K. Samal, Advocate

Vs.

State of Orissa and others

….. Opposite Parties

Mr. P.P. Mohanty, AGA Mr. D. Mohanty, Advocate for MCL

CORAM:

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

ORDER

02.05.2024

Order No. This matter is taken up by hybrid mode.

Heard Mr. U.K. Samal, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. P.P. Mohanty, learned Addl. Government Advocate for State and Mr. D. Mohanty, learned counsel for MCL.

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

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

Page 1 of 3

been disbursed, the authorities may be directed to disburse the same in their favour.

Mr. P.P. Mohanty, learned Addl. Government Advocate 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.

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.

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

Page 2 of 3

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.

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

(DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE

(G. SATAPATHY) JUDGE

Subhasmita

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASMITA DAS Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 03-May-2024 16:27:00

Page 3 of 3

Issues for consideration

2 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the petitioners are entitled to a direction for disbursement of the compensation amount determined for their acquired lands, in cases where it has not been disbursed.medium confidence¶17
The court held
The court recorded as evident that the petitioners' lands were acquired, compensation was determined, and disbursement was made in favour of only some of the petitioners.ratio¶23
2.
What remedy is available to the petitioners with regard to the adequacy or inadequacy of the compensation amount.medium confidence¶18
The court held
On adequacy or inadequacy of the compensation amount, the petitioners are free to approach the appropriate authority in accordance with law.ratio¶23

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Prior proceeding
Land of the petitioners was acquired and handed over to MCL, which took possession and commenced mining work thereon.¶18
Prior proceeding
Compensation amount was determined and deposited with the State authority; disbursement made in some cases but not in others.¶22

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
Laba Buda and others¶3
Mr. U.K. Samal
respondent
State of Orissa and others¶7
Mr. P.P. Mohanty, Mr. D. Mohanty

Coram

AI extract

Dr. Justice B.R. Sarangimember¶11
Mr. Justice G. Satapathymember¶11

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Orissa HC
Decided on: 2 May 2024 · May
Registered: 7 Mar 2018
Case no.: WP(C)/3479/2018
CNR: ODHC010103972018
Bench: B.r.sarangi Gourishankar Satapathy
Disposal: Disposed Off
Case type: W.P.(C)

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from B.r.sarangi Gourishankar Satapathy

Prafulla Chandra Panda Vs State of Odisha
1 May 2024
M/S Mackintosh Burn Ltd., Kolkata Vs State of Odisha
1 May 2024
M/S.Zenith Steels Vs Union of India
1 May 2024
Commissioner of Customs(Preventive),Bbsr Vs Sunil Verma
2 May 2024
Shankar Mishra Vs East Coast Railway
2 May 2024
Venkateswar Rao Kutadi Vs State of Odisha
2 May 2024

Cite this judgement

Laba Buda v. State of Orissa, WP(C)/3479/2018 (OD), decided on 2 May 2024.

The High Court of Orissa publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Procedural history2

Land of the petitioners was acquired and handed over to MCL, which took possession and commenced mining work thereon.
Compensation amount was determined and deposited with the State authority; disbursement made in some cases but not in others.

View full history

Bench / Coram

Dr. Justice B.R. Sarangi and Mr. Justice G. Satapathy

Parties & counsel