Poshram Sahu Vs State of Odisha

The grievance of the Petitioner, in this writ application, is with regard to inaction of the Special Land Acquisition Officer & RRO, Lower Indra Irrigation Project, Khariar (Opposite Party No.3) in disposing of his application filed under section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’).

¶15

It is submitted by Mr. Mund, learned counsel for the Petitioner that LAR No.29 of 2017 of village Padelbahali in the District of Nuapada referred under section 18 of the Act was disposed of vide judgment dated 26^th February, 2024 enhancing the compensation. Since the land of the Petitioner was acquired under the same Notification No.55465 dated 23.11.2000 under section 4(1) of the Act, the Petitioner filed an application issued under section 28-A of the Act for redetermination of compensation for acquisition of his land in terms of judgment in LAR No.29 of 2017. The said application was

¶16

Page 1 of 3

¶17

not disposed of within a reasonable time for which the Petitioner has approached this Court in the present writ petition.

¶18

Considering the grievance of the Petitioner, this Court vide Order dated 18.07.2025 directed learned State Counsel to take instruction with regard to current status of the petition filed by the Petitioner under section 28-A of the Act.

¶19

Mr.Biswal, learned Additional Standing Counsel, on receiving written instruction from the Opposite Party No.3, submits that the Government in the Department of Water Resources, Odisha, Bhubaneswar, has communicated the sanction order in connection with the judgment in LAR No.29 of 2017. Hence, the Special Land Acquisition Officer & RRO, Lower Indra Irrigation Project, Khariar vide his Letter No.1631 dated 17.09.2025 stated that large number of similar nature of cases are pending in the Office of the Opposite Party No.3 and thus cases are being dealt with serially. The written instruction of the Opposite Party No.3 vide Letter No.1631 dated 17.09.2025 filed by Mr. Biswal, learned Additional Standing Counsel is taken on record.

¶20

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that sanction order in connection with LAR No.29 of 2017 has already been received by Opposite Party No.3.

¶21

Hence, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case of the Petitioner in the application under section 28-A of the Act, disposes of the writ petition with a direction that the petition under section 28-A of the Act, filed by the Petitioner shall be disposed of in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably by end of January, 2026 and decision thereof be communicated to the Petitioner forthwith. If the Petitioner is found to be entitled to the enhanced compensation in terms of judgment passed in LAR No.29 of

¶22

Page 2 of 3

¶23

2017, then the differential amount along with other statutory dues shall be released in favour of the Petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, preferably by end of March, 2026.

¶24

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

¶25

(Savitri Ratho) Judge

¶26

Himansu

¶27

Signature Not Verified

¶28

Digitally Signed Signed by: HIMANSU SEKHAR DASH Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 19-Sep-2025 16:49:19

¶29

Page 3 of 3

Poshram Sahu v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Poshram Sahu v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Ramu Vs Executive Engineer

Keshab Kumar Pani Vs Union of India

Radharaman Sarangi Vs Indian Oil Corpn.

Prafulla Kumar Nanda Vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar

Karunakar Parabhoi Vs State of Odisha

Bijelal Sagaria Vs State of Odisha