Dismissed¶36

Manas Ranjan Pradhan v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC10 Jul 2025WP(C)/5022/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa High Court, W.P.(C) No. 5022 of 2025, order dated 10.07.2025 by Justice K.R. Mohapatra and Justice Savitri Ratho: writ petition of Manas Ranjan Pradhan challenging order dated 17.04.2024 of General Manager, Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., Lakhanpur Area dismissing his claim for compensation and R&R benefits (land purchased after 11(1) notification dated 15.12.1988 under CBA (A & D) Act, 1957); earlier petition W.P.(C) No. 36066 of 2023 disposed 27.02.2024; dismissed for non-prosecution as petitioner absent; no relief granted; no merits decided.

What did the court decide?

Since none appeared for the petitioner to pursue the matter, the Court dismissed the writ petition for non-prosecution; the merits of the claim were not adjudicated. ¶35

Manas Ranjan Pradhan Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 11-Jul-2025 11:52:47

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C). NO.5022 OF 2025

¶3

Manas Ranjan Pradhan

…. Petitioner

None

-versus-

State of Odisha and others

¶8

…. Opp. Parties

¶9

Mr. Sabita Ranjan Pattnaik, Additional Government Advocate

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO

ORDER

Order No.

10.07.2025

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶17

None appears for the Petitioner at the time of call.

¶18

This writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:

¶19

“Under the circumstances stated above this Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to admit this Writ petition, issue notice to the opp. parties and after hearing the parties quash the order dated 17.4.2024 issued by the Opp. party No. 4 ;

¶20

And the opp. party No. 4 may be direct to give employment as well as compensation in lieu of land Acquisition under CBA ( A&D) Act, 1957.

¶21

Any other relief this Hon'ble Court deem fit just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted in favour of the petitioner.

¶22

And for which act of kindness, the poor petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.”

¶23

It reveals from the case record that vide order dated 2^nd May,

¶24

2025, this Court passed the following order:

¶25

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

¶26

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Manas Ranjan Pradhan challenging the order dated 17.04.2024 under Annexure-1 dated 16.04.2024 passed by the General Manager, Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., Lakhanpur Area, opposite party no.4.

¶27

It appears that the petitioner earlier approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 36066 of 2023, which was disposed of on 27.02.2024 and the opposite party no.4 was asked to consider and dispose of the representation filed by the petitioner and to pass appropriate order within a period of three months from the

¶28

Page 1 of 2

¶29

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 11-Jul-2025 11:52:47

¶30

date of production of certified copy of the order. Learned counsel for the petitioner files the copy of the order dated 27.02.2024, which is taken on record.

¶31

On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that opposite party no.4 found that the petitioner Intentionally/knowingly purchased the land after 11(1) notification under CBA (A & D) Act, 1957 to get compensation and R & R benefits and therefore, it was observed that his case has no merit.

¶32

From the said order, it reveals that 11(1) notification was issued on 15.12.1988. When we made a query to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to when the petitioner purchased the land, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks some time to produce the relevant documents in that respect on the next date.

¶33

List this matter in the week commencing from 30th June 2025.”

¶34

The matter was then listed on 2^nd July, 2025, when learned counsel for the Petitioner sought for an adjournment. While granting adjournment to learned counsel for the Petitioner, this Court was made it clear that no further prayer for adjournment at the instance of the Petitioner shall be entertained on the next date, i.e., today.

¶35