Disposed¶21

Sweta Rungta v. Union of India

Orissa HC5 Apr 2024WP(C)/42504/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Orissa Cuttack; W.P.(C) No.42504 of 2023; Sweta Rungta v. Union of India & others; R.K. Pattanaik; eviction notice Annexure-18 dated 22 December 2023; opposite party No.3; land acquisition for Railways; compensation paid; Plot Nos.1007/1948 and 1007/2123; Ac.0.19 unacquired remainder; eviction confined to acquired land; writ petition disposed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with the direction that action pursuant to eviction notice Annexure-18 be confined to the land acquired by the Railways (compensation paid and received), and made clear that such action shall not relate to the rest part of Plot Nos.1007/1948 and 1007/2123 measuring Ac.0.19 held by the petitioner without acquisition. ¶21

Sweta Rungta Vs Union of India — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.42504 of 2023

¶3

Sweta Rungta

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. S. Mohapatra, Advocate

¶6

-Versus-

¶7

Union of India & others …. Opposite Parties

¶8

Mr. P.K. Rout, AGA Mr. D.R. Bhokta, CGC

¶9

CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

Order No.

ORDER 05.04.2024

Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

¶14

Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the eviction notice dated 22^nd December, 2023 i.e. Annexure-18 issued by opposite party No.3 on the grounds stated therein.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that A.0.15 decimal of the land has been acquired by the State Government and handed over to the Railways but the alleged eviction with issuance of notice as per Annexure-18 relates to the rest part of Plot Nos.1007/1948 and 1007/2123 measuring Ac 0.o80 decimal. It is alleged that the eviction is in respect of the land in occupation of the petitioner, which is yet to be acquired by the Government to be handed over to the Railways. While claiming so, learned counsel for the petitioner refers to Annexure-19 to the rejoinder affidavit.

¶16

On the other hand, Mr. Bhokta, learned counsel for opposite party Nos.1 to 3 submits that the eviction notice is in respect of the land acquired to an extent of Ac.0.080 decimals only.

¶17

Page 1 of 2

¶18

The payment of compensation in respect of the land acquired by the Railways is not in dispute. The grievance of the petitioner is that over and above the land acquired by the Government and handed over to the Railways, the eviction notice is in relation to the remainder of alleged plots, acquisition of which is still to be processed.

¶19

Having regard to the facts pleaded on record and submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the Railways besides Mr. Rout, learned AGA for the State, the Court is of the considered view that the action which is required pursuant to eviction notice i.e. Annexure-18 should be confined to land acquired by the Railways and compensation for which has already been paid and received by the petitioner in the meantime. It is made clear that such action as per Annexure-18 should not be in relation to the rest part of Plot Nos.1007/1948 and 1007/2123 with an area measuring Ac.0.19, which is stated to be in possession of the petitioner till date without any acquisition having taken place.

¶20

Hence, it is ordered.

¶21

In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of with the direction as aforesaid.

¶22

Urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.

¶23

Balaram

¶24

Signature Not Verified

¶25

Digitally Signed Signed by: BALARAM BEHERA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 06-Apr-2024 10:37:52

¶26

Page 2 of 2

Sweta Rungta v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sweta Rungta v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Divl. Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mamata Prusty

Shiba Shankar Pal @ Shiba Prasad Pal Vs State of Odisha

Khokan Samanta Vs State of Odisha

Nibash Barik Vs State of Odisha

Prasana Behera Vs Sachidananda Naik, O.A.S.

Nalini Prava Rout Vs Bbsr Municipal Corporation