Dismissed¶25

Bandana Samal v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC16 Oct 2025WP(C)/22968/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bandana Samal v. State of Odisha; W.P.(C) No.22968 of 2025; land acquisition compensation enhancement; parity with LAA No.143 of 2010 denied; Land Acquisition Act 1894 sections 4(1), 11(1), 18, 54; L.A. Case No.2/1995; L.A. Misc. Case No.359 of 1996; reference judgment dated 20.02.1998; W.P.(C) Nos.2803 and 2804 of 2023; representation before Collector, Bhadrak dated 03.07.2025; writ petition dismissed; liberty to pursue statutory remedy.

What did the court decide?

None; the Court only observed that the dismissal shall not be a bar to the Petitioner working out her statutory remedy in accordance with law. ¶25

Bandana Samal Vs State of Odisha — Land Acquisition | Orissa HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.22968 of 2025

¶3

Bandana Samal …. Petitioner

¶4

Mr.Dibyaranjan Behera. Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha and Others

¶7

…. Opposite Parties

¶8

Mr. Sibanarayan Biswal, Additional Standing Counsel

¶9

CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA

¶10

JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO

ORDER

Order No.

16.10.2025

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶16

2 . Petitioner, in this writ petition, prays for a direction to release compensation in terms of the judgment passed in LAA No.143 of 2010 and order passed in W.P.(C) No.2804 of 2023 by this Court.

¶17

Mr. Behera, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that pursuant to the acquisition of the land of the Petitioner in Plot No.248 to an extent of Ac.0.21 dec., L.A. Case No.2/1995 was initiated and award under section 11(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) was passed. Being not satisfied, the Petitioner along with other co-sharers filed an application under section 18 of the Act and the matter was referred to the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhadrak for adjudication. Accordingly, L.A. Misc. Case No.359 of 1996 was initiated on his file. The reference under section 18 was disposed of vide judgment dated 20.02.1998 enhancing the compensation. In the meantime, land losers whose land was acquired under the same notification under section 4(1) of the Act filed LAA No.143 of 2010 before this Court under section 54 of the Act assailing the judgment passed in reference filed by them and land acquisition compensation was further enhanced by this Court. Some

¶18

Page 1 of 3

¶19

of the land losers, who are similarly placed without filing appeal under Section 54 of the Act filed W.P.(C) No.2803 of 2023 to dispose of their representations filed before the Collector for enhancement of compensation in terms of LAA No.143 of 2010. On agreement of learned counsel for the parties, this Court vide order dated 07.02.2023 directed the Collector to consider the representation filed by the Petitioner therein and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of the said order.

¶20

It is submitted by Mr. Behera, learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner stands in a similar footing. It is also submitted by Mr. Behera, learned counsel for the Petitioner that pursuant to the direction of this Court representation was favourably disposed of in favour of the Petitioners therein and enhanced compensation in terms of LAA No.143 of 2010 was paid to them. Thus, it is submitted that since the Petitioner stands in a similar footing and has also filed a representation before Collector, Bhadrak (Opposite Party No.2) on 03.07.2025 (Annexure-5), a direction may be made for disposal of her representation.

¶21

Mr. Biswal, learned Additional Standing Counsel submits that he will take instruction in the matter.

¶22

Taking into consideration the submission made by learned counsel for the Petitioner, this Court finds that the Petitioner was neither a party to LAA No.143 of 2010 nor W.P.(C) No.2804 of 2023. There is no sufficient material to show that the Petitioner stands in a similar footing with that of the Appellants and Petitioners in the aforesaid LAA No.143 of 2010 and W.P.(C) No.2804 of 2023 respectively. Further the Petitioner has not availed remedy under section 54 of the Act to claim for higher compensation as yet, if she is not satisfied with the judgment passed in the reference under section 18 of the Act.

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶24

Thus, we are not inclined to grant the prayer made by the Petitioner in the present writ petition.

¶25

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. It is, however, observed that dismissal of the writ petition shall not be a bar for the Petitioner to work out the statutory remedy in accordance with law.

¶26

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

¶27

(Savitri Ratho) Judge

¶28

Himansu

¶29

Signature Not Verified

¶30

Digitally Signed Signed by: HIMANSU SEKHAR DASH Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 17-Oct-2025 18:54:43

¶31

Page 3 of 3

Bandana Samal v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bandana Samal 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sarangadhara Tripath Vs State and Ors.

Durga Prasad Dash Vs State and Ors.

Subidha Parua Vs State of Odisha

Anusuya Devi Agarwal Vs Collector, Cuttack

Sukadeb Swain Vs State of Odisha

Krushna Chandra Sahoo Vs State of Odisha