The petition sought employment compensation in lieu of land acquired under L.A. Case No.26 of 1985. The Court found a 37-year unexplained delay constituting laches, relying on precedent, and dismissed the writ petition both on grounds of laches and merits.
Petition dismissed in the interests of justice due to unexplained laches and lack of merit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.10422 of 2025
Antaryami Naik …. Petitioner
Ms. Rajalaxmi Biswal, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and …. Opp. Parties others
Mr. Partha Sarathi Nayak, Additional Govt. Advocate
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. S. Mishra
Order No.
ORDER 21.04.2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Antaryami Naik, who is aged about 58 years, with a prayer to provide him employment as per R & R policy in lieu of the land acquired vide L.A. Case No.26 of 1985.
It appears that the land stands recorded in the name of one Kuhan Naik, son of Damodar Naik and he has received the compensation amount. So far as the employment is concerned, he has nominated his son Santha Naik for such employment. In the guidelines
Page 1 of 3
dated 02.06.1988 under Annexure-1 under Clause-4(d) under the heading “4. Employment”, it is stated as follows:-
“4(d) Besides contractors working under the S.E.C.L. shall provide employment according to their requirement to members of displaced families according to eligibility S.E.C.L. shall prepare a list of such person to be provided with employment and supply the name to the contractors working under them with copy to collector of the District.”
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though Kuhan Naik recommended Santha Naik for the employment, but Santha Naik has not given any employment. No such averment has been made in the writ petition.
The cause of action arose in the year 1988. In the meantime, thirty seven years have passed and the petitioner has not offered any explanation regarding delay on his part to claim such relief. In the writ petition merely the submission has been made by the petitioner that he was approaching different authorities during this period. However, particulars of the same have not been averred in the petition. Therefore, no sufficient cause is coming forth on record to condone the inordinate delay. Moreover, Clause-4(d) of the guidelines dated 02.06.1888 indicates that, the contractors on their requirements, shall give the employment under category-D to one of the family the
Page 2 of 3
members of the land losers.
The huge delay caused by the petitioner to approach this Court for the relief sought remained unexplained. This is a case of laches. Although it is true that for filing a writ petition no limitation is prescribed under the law, however the principle governing the law of limitation holds grounds even in the adjudication of the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. A party, who has slept over a right is guilty of laches, cannot claim relief at an unexplained belated stage. This principle has been reiterated by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sadananda Naik vrs.
State of Odisha and others , reported in 2025
LiveLaw (Ori.) 55 .
In view of the aforementioned, we are of the considered view that the petition deserves no merit. Hence, the same is dismissed on the ground of laches as well as on merits.
( S.K. Sahoo) Judge
( S. S. Mishra)
Judge
Swarna/Ashok
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 21-Apr-2025 18:50:36
Page 3 of 3
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the principle of laches applies to condone inordinate delay in a writ petition seeking employment compensation under land acquisition guidelines without explanation for the 37-year delay.
Whether the petitioner qualifies for employment under R & R policy guidelines given the delay in approaching authorities and filing the writ petition.
Whether the § 4(d) of guidelines dated 02.06.1988 grants the right to employment to the land loser's family members after such a prolonged period.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sadananda Naik versus State of Odisha and othersRelied on¶25
2025 LiveLaw (Ori.) 55
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Antaryami Naik
State of Odisha
S.K. Sahoo
S. S. Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
