Disposed¶24

Subash Chandra Ghatuary v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC15 Sept 2025WP(C)/18892/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: displaced families; rehabilitation and resettlement; Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; Samal Barrage; Rengali Irrigation Project; Angul; Nalam; Kusumpal; land acquisition; maintainability of joint writ petition; certiorari; mandamus; withdrawal of writ petition. Outcome: W.P.(C) No. 18892 of 2023 disposed of as withdrawn on 15.09.2025 without expression of opinion on merits; no precedent cited; no quantum involved.

What did the court decide?

Withdrawal of the writ petition permitted; petition disposed of as withdrawn without any opinion on merits; no substantive relief granted. ¶24

Subash Chandra Ghatuary Vs State of Odisha — Land Acquisition | Orissa HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) NO. 18892 OF 2023

¶2

Subash Chnadra Ghatuary & 19 others …. Petitioners

¶3

Mr. Prasanta Kumar Satpathy, Advocate

¶4

-versus-

¶5

1. State of Odisha

¶6

2. The Collector & District Magistrate, Angul 3. Chief Engineer & Basin Manager, Rengali Irrigation Project, Angul 4. Zone Officer, Resettleemnt and Rehabilitation, Samal Barrage Angul

¶7

5. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Resettlement and Rehabilitation …. Office, Angul Opposite Parties Mr. Swayambhu Mishra, A.S.C.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO

Order No.

ORDER 15.09.2025

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶14

2 . Petitioner in this writ petition prays for the following relief;

¶15

“The petitioners, therefore pray that your Lordships would be graciously pleased to admit this writ petition, call for the records and after hearing the parties allow the same with cost and issue writ /writs in the nature of certiorari / mandamus and issue writ / direction, commanding the O.P. No. 5. to identify the petitioners as “Displaced Families” and accordingly provide them rehabilitation and resettlement benefits under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 within a stipulated time;

¶16

Page 1 of 3

¶17

And pass any other order/orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper;

¶18

And for this act of kindness, the petitioners as in duty bound shall ever pray.”

¶19

At the outset, Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel raised serious objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition. It is his submission that villagers of two villages, namely, Nalam and Kusumpal in the district of Angul have joined together to file the present writ petition. Particulars of the land belonging to each of the Petitioners which has been acquired has not been stated. There is also no material on record to show that the Petitioners are members of the displaced family. Hence, he submits that in absence of the aforesaid particulars, it is very difficult on the part of the Opposite Parties to address the grievance of the Petitioners that they are entitled to the benefits meant for displaced families. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶20

Mr. Satpathy, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Land Acquisition Officer has not taken any steps to prepare the list of displaced families which is the grievance of the Petitioners in the writ petition. He, however, fairly submits that the particulars of the land acquired of each of the Petitioners has not been stated. He, therefore, prays for withdrawal of the writ petition to approach the authority giving the details for redressal of the grievances of the Petitioners.

¶21

Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel submits that he has no objection to the prayer made by learned counsel for

¶22

Page 2 of 3

¶23

the Petitioner, but each Petitioner has to approach individually for redressal of their grievances.

¶24

In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the Parties, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits of submission made by Mr. Satpathy, learned counsel for the Petitioner, disposes of the Writ Petition as withdrawn.

¶25

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

¶26

Subhalaxmi

¶27

(Savitri Ratho) Judge

¶28

Signature Not Verified

¶29

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHALAXMI PRIYADARSHANI SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 15-Sep-2025 19:19:08

¶30

Page 3 of 3

Subash Chandra Ghatuary v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subash Chandra Ghatuary 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

Bada Odiya Math Vs State of Odisha

Fahemida Khanum @ Firdos Vs State of Odisha

Kalabati Rana Vs State of Odisha

Gouranga Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Braja Kishor Prdhan Vs the Arbitrator Under Nh ACT,1956-CUM-DISTRICT Magistrate and Collector,Sambalpur

Kainta Samal Vs the Arbitrator Under Nh Act, 1956-CUM-DISTRICT Magistrate and Collector, Sambalpur