Naimish Kumar Meher Vs State of Odisha

The Petitioner, in this writ application, seeks to assail the order dated 13.12.2023 (Annexure-8) passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Indravati Irrigation Project (UIIP), Kusumkhunti (Opposite Party No.4) rejecting the petition of the Petitioner, which was entertained pursuant to the direction of this Court in W.P.(C) No.28235 of 2022.

¶19

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that by virtue of a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’), an area of Ac.22.13 dec. of village Banijara was acquired including the land of the Petitioner. Accordingly, LA Case No.25 of 1996 of village Banijara was initiated on the file of the Special Land Acquisition Officer. Out of the acquired land for construction of Banijara Minor, Belapada Sub-minor No.1 of UIIP,

¶20

Page 1 of 1

¶21

Plot No.180/799 was owned and possessed by the Petitioner. Award under Section 11 was passed and the Petitioner has received the land acquisition compensation pursuant to the award dated 17.05.1998.

¶22

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that as on date, Plot No.180/799 has not been utilized for the purpose it was acquired and it is lying fallow. The said plot was a valuable piece of land of the Petitioner. Thus, he made an application to exchange another piece of his land with the aforesaid plot. The same was not being considered by the Special Land Acquisition Officer for which he approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.28235 of 2022 which was disposed of on 01.11.2022 with a direction to the Special Land Acquisition Officer (Opposite Party No.4) to take a decision on the said petition in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of the said order and to communicate the same to the Petitioner. Accordingly, the Special Land Acquisition Officer (Opposite Party No.4) communicated the impugned order dated 13.12.2023 (Annexure-8) to the Petitioner.

¶23

It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Special Land Acquisition Officer without considering the fact that the land of the Petitioner acquired for the project has not been utilized and is lying fallow. Thus, there was no difficulty on the part of the said Authority to exchange the land with another piece of land of the Petitioner. Without considering the same, the Special Land Acquisition Officer (Opposite Party No.4) rejected the application for exchange of the land. Hence, this writ application has been filed.

¶24

Page 2 of 3

¶25

Taking note of the submission made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner and on perusal of the record, this Court finds that pursuant to the award dated 17.05.1998, the Land Acquisition compensation has already been released in faovur of the Petitioner. Possession of the land acquired including the land of the Petitioner has already been taken over on 26.05.1998. An area of Ac.2.00 dec. in Plot No.180/799 of the Petitioner was acquired for the purpose of the aforesaid project under Upper Indravati Irrigation Project.

¶26

After acquisition of the land and taking over possession of the same, the Special Land Acquisition Officer lacks jurisdiction to exchange any plot of land as prayed for by the Petitioner. It is a fact this Court on earlier occasion in W.P.(C) No.28235 of 2025 directed the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Indravati Irrigation Project to dispose of the petition filed by the Petitioner. But as rightly observed in the impugned order, there was no possibility or any scope to exchange the land as requested by the Petitioner after the land has been acquired and compensation has been released. Thus, we find no merit in the writ petition.

¶27