Disposed

Mursid Ali Khan v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC7 May 2025WP(C)/10708/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa disposed of a writ petition seeking compensation for construction over acquired land. It observed that the petitioner's application to the Collector lacked a specific prayer under Section 64 of the 2013 Act. The Court directed the petitioner to file a fresh application and disposed of the petition without expressing an opinion on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file appropriate application under Section 64 of 2013 Act; writ petition disposed of.

Mursid Ali Khan Vs State of Odisha — Land Acquisition | Orissa HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.10708 of 2025

¶3

Mursid Ali Khan ….. Petitioner

¶4

Mr. B.S. Panigrahi, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha and others

¶7

..... Opp. Parties Mr. Gyanalok Mohanty, Standing Counsel

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA

ORDER

Order No.

07.05.2025

This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

¶15

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to direct the opposite parties, specifically opposite party no.2, the Collector, Jajapur and opposite party no.3, the Land Acquisition Officer (NH-20 Cell), Collector, Jajpiur to take appropriate decision on the application of the petitioner under Annexures-3 and 4 and disburse the compensation/solatium in favour of the petitioner in respect of the construction made over the land in question within a stipulated period.

¶16

Page 1 of 2

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has submitted an application before the Collector, Jajpur, opposite party no.2 which is purported to one under section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation Act, 2013 (hereafter ‘2013 Act’) and therefore, the Collector, Jajpur should have referred the matter to the authority. However, on going through the application filed by the petitioner, this Court finds that there is no such prayer in that application.

¶18

It is open to the petitioner to file appropriate application under section 64 of 2013 Act before the opposite party no.2, the Collector, Jajpur with the certified copy of this order and in that event, the opposite party no.2 shall do the needful in accordance with law. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the application submitted by the petitioner.

¶19

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy as per Rules.

¶20

( S.K. Sahoo) Judge

¶21

( S. S. Mishra)

¶22

Judge

¶23

Signature Not Verified Pravakar

¶24

Digitally Signed Signed by: PRAVAKAR NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CU TTACK Date: 08-May-2025 19:07:20

¶25

Page 2 of 2

Mursid Ali Khan v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mursid Ali Khan 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sarojini Mohanty Vs State of Odisha

Rajesh Kumar Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Balaram Sira Vs State of Orissa

Puspa Beshra Vs Union of India

Minati Beshra Vs Union of India

Budhia Naik Vs the Collector and D.M. Dhenknal