Disposed¶33

Nilamadhab Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC11 Mar 2025WP(C)/4223/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WP(C) No.4223 of 2025, High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, decided 11.03.2025 (Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra): ex-gratia compensation for cyclone 'Fani' damage in Puri; balance house building assistance of Rs.85,100/- out of declared Rs.95,100/- after initial payment of Rs.10,000/-; State's objection that damage could not be verified; discrimination and arbitrariness in disbursal; coordinate-bench precedent Bidulata Sahoo confirmed in W.A. No.636 of 2024 (02.07.2024); writ disposed with direction to pay balance within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Opposite Parties to pay the balance ex-gratia compensation amount of Rs.85,100/- to the petitioner within three months from the date of communication of a certified copy of the order. ¶33

Nilamadhab Sahoo Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner — listed among the persons affected by cyclone 'Fani' and paid only Rs.10,000/- of the declared ex-gratia house building assistance of Rs.95,100/- — is entitled to release of the balance Rs.85,100/-, notwithstanding the State's contention that the damage to his house could not be properly verified.

¶15

Court's answer

The factual background of the present case was already scrutinised in the previous round of litigation (Bidulata Sahoo, confirmed in W.A. No.636 of 2024); the facts involved are identical, the petitioner belongs to the same locality, and the ground taken for denying the balance ex-gratia has already been dealt with by the coordinate bench and upheld by the Division Bench; therefore there is no occasion to take a view differing from that already taken by the coordinate Bench and confirmed by the Division Bench.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

Initially an amount of Rs.10,000/- was paid in both the previous writ and the present writ application, admitting the damage caused to the petitioner's property; the subsequent denial of the balance rested on a ground already dealt with by the coordinate bench.

¶29

Key takeaways

The writ application is disposed of in terms of the order passed in W.A. No.636 of 2024 dated 02.07.2024, by directing the Opposite Parties to pay the balance ex-gratia compensation amount of Rs.85,100/- to the petitioner within three months from the date of communication of a certified copy of the order.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Cyclone 'Fani' (03.05.2019) severely damaged the residential house of the petitioner in Puri; the State declared ex-gratia house building assistance of Rs.95,100/- and included the petitioner in its list of affected persons dated 15.05.2019, but paid only Rs.10,000/- on 20.08.2019. The State refused the balance Rs.85,100/- on the ground that the damage could not be properly verified. Taking note of the identical case of Bidulata Sahoo (coordinate bench order dated 01.11.2023 in W.P.(C) No.25400 of 2024), confirmed by the Division Bench in W.A. No.636 of 2024 (02.07.2024) — which held the 23.06.2021 re-inspection irrelevant and rejected any requirement that a beneficiary maintain the damaged house for two years to earn compensation — the Single Judge found no occasion to take a differing view, disposed of the writ in terms of the W.A. order, and directed the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.85,100/- within three months of communication of the certified copy of the order.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.4223 of 2025

¶2

Nilamadhab Sahoo

¶3

..... Petitioner

¶4

Represented By Adv. - Arupananda Goswamy

¶5

-versus-

¶6

1) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties 2) Spl. Relief Commnr.,bbsr Represented By Adv. – 3) Collector Cum Dm, Puri Mr. U.C.Jena, A.S.C.

¶7

Spl. Relief Commnr.,bbsr 3) Collector Cum Dm, Puri 4) Tahasildar Cum Executive Magistrate, Puri

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

11.03.2025

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ petition as well as documents annexed thereto.

¶15

The present writ application has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer for a direction to the Opposite parties to release the balance amount of ex-gratia compensation amount of Rs.85,100/- in favour of the petitioner and to extend all other benefits as has been declared by the State Government through the Revenue & Disaster Management Department and Special

¶16

Page 1 of 6.

¶17

Relief Commissioner so far the victims of the cyclonic storm “ Fani ” are concerned.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset contended that entire costal region of Odisha bore the brunt of the cyclone storm “ Fani ” on 03.05.2019. As a result of which, although the entire costal bench of Odisha was affected, however, Puri district suffered the worst consequences. He further contended that in the said super cyclone, the residential house of the present petitioner was severely damaged. Thereafter, the State Government declared ex-gratia house building assistance of Rs.95,100/- to all the persons whose houses were severely damaged in the cyclone.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that several surveys were conducted by the State Government Officers as well as the District Administration to assess the extent of damage caused to the properties of the people living in the area affected by cyclone “ Fani’ . Finally, the State Government came up with a list of the affected persons on 15.05.2019. Such list includes the name of the present petitioner along with other affected persons. On the basis of the aforesaid list prepared by the State Government Officers, the petitioner is entitled to the ex-gratia house building assistance of Rs.95,100/-. On 20^th August, 2019, the petitioner received a sum of Rs.10,000/- as initial amount of ex-gratia compensation. However, the balance amount of Rs.85,100/- has not been

¶20

Page 2 of 6.

¶21

released in favour of the present petitioner. Although the petitioner approached the authority on several occasions, however they had not paid any heed to the grievance of the present petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that similarly situated other persons have received the full amount of the compensation. Thus, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ application. Challenging the inaction of the State-Opposite Parties on the ground of discrimination and arbitrary conduct while disbursing the ex-gratia compensation in favour of the petitioner and similarly situated any other persons.

¶22

In course of his argument learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that similarly situated persons, whose name appeared in the said list, and who had received Rs.10,000/-, had approached this Court for sanction and disbursal of the balance amount of Rs.85,100/- by filing W.P.(C) No.25400 of 2024. A coordinate bench of this Court, vide order dated 01.11.2023, while disposing of the writ application directed that the petitioners in that case deserve to get the balance amount of Rs.85,100/-. Accordingly, the Opposite parties were directed to release such compensation amount within a period of one month.

¶23

The aforesaid order passed by the learned coordinate bench was assailed before the Division Bench of this Court in a writ appeal bearing W.A. No.636 of 2024 by the State-Opposite Parties. The Hon’ble Division Bench, vide order dated

¶24

Page 3 of 6.

¶25

02.07.2024 disposed of the writ appeal confirming the order passed by the learned Single Judge. While disposing of the writ appeal, the Hon’ble Division bench had opined that “the inspection conducted on 23.06.2021 to assess the damage caused to the house of the respondent is irrelevant for the purpose of consideration of payment of amount of compensation. It is absurd to presume that the beneficiary is required to maintain the condition of the house after the damage was caused, for two years, so as to become entitled to the amount of compensation”.

¶26

Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that since the petitioner was not eligible to get such compensation, he has not been given the balance amount of the compensation. Learned counsel for the State further contended that the damage caused to the house of the petitioner could not be properly verified, therefore he has not been paid the ex-gratia compensation as has been claimed by the petitioner. It was also contended that the case of the petitioner cannot be equated with the persons to whom such amount has already been disbursed, especially such disbursal is based on verification of the condition of the house and the damage caused to the property of the person concerned. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to any compensation and accordingly it was stated that writ application is devoid of merit and is likely to be dismissed at the threshold.

¶27

Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the

¶28

Page 4 of 6.

¶29

parties, on a careful examination of the factual background of the present case, further taking note of the order passed by the learned Single Judge Bench in Bidulata Sahoo vs. Sate of Odisha and others which was confirmed in Writ Appeal bearing W.A. No.636 of 2024 vide order dated 02.07.2024 , this Court observes that the factual background of the present case was up for scrutiny before this Court in the previous round of litigation, and the facts involved in that case are identical to the case of the present petitioner who belongs to the same locality. In the previous writ as well as in the present writ application initially an amount of Rs.10,000/- was paid admitting the damage caused to the property of the petitioner. However, subsequently the same was denied, and the ground that has been taken while denying the payment of the balance ex-gratia compensation amount to the petitioner has already been dealt with by the coordinate bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.24500 of 2023 and the view taken by the learned co-ordinate bench has already been upheld by the Division bench in the abovenoted judgment. Therefore, there is no occasion to take a view differing from that which has already been taken by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court and confirmed by the Division bench. In such view of the matter, the present writ application is disposed of in terms of the order passed in W.A. No.636 of 2024 dated 02.07.2024. Accordingly, the writ application is disposed of by directing the Opposite parties to pay the balance ex-gratia compensation amount of Rs.85,100/- to the petitioner within a period of three

¶30

Page 5 of 6.

¶31

Rubi

¶32

months from the date of communication of a certified copy of today’s order.

¶33