Dismissed¶35

Farmers Association,Banki v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC12 Mar 2025WP(C)/5267/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maintainability of writ petition by unregistered association; Farmers Association Banki; representative capacity and authorisation of office-bearers; land acquisition compensation; Right to Fair Compensation, Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Sections 11, 15, 28, 30, 80); mandamus; Article 19(1)(c) Constitution of India; Dalco Engineering Pvt. Ltd. v. Satish Prabhakar Padhye (2010) 4 SCC 378; Umesh Chand Vinod Kumar v. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti (1993) SCC OnLine Allhabad 638; Chief Minister's Grievance Cell; Banki; Cuttack; Odisha.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is not maintainable at the instance of petitioner No.1, as the unregistered Farmers Association Banki does not have a valid existence so as to maintain the petition. ¶35

Farmers Association,Banki Vs State of Odisha — Land Acquisition | Orissa HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition is maintainable at the instance of petitioner No.1, an unregistered association of affected farmers. +1 more

¶35

Court's answer

The writ petition is not maintainable at the instance of petitioner No.1, as the unregistered Farmers Association Banki does not have a valid existence so as to maintain the petition.

¶35

Ratio / Principle

There is no document relating to the institution of the members of the Association or framing of any bye-laws, and the resolution annexed to the writ petition does not contain the signatures of the members except those of the President and Secretary, so petitioner No.1 was not shown to be duly authorised by its members to espouse their cause.

¶34

Key takeaways

Although the resolution (Annexure-4, Resolution No.1) appointed the President as Convenor, no signatures of the members of the association appear at page No.40, undermining the claim of authorisation.ratio¶32
Farmers allegedly affected by non-receipt of compensation despite acquisition of land may raise their grievance in the appropriate forum, and the petitioners may pursue the grievance already registered if so advised.obiter¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P.(C) No. 5267 of 2025 (High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, Bench of Justice S. K. Sahoo and Justice Savitri Ratho, order dated 12.03.2025): A writ petition by Farmers Association Banki (an unregistered association) through its President, together with two individual farmers, sought mandamus directing the State of Odisha authorities to initiate land acquisition proceedings under Sections 11 and 15 of the Right to Fair Compensation, Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, to pay adequate compensation per Sections 28 and 30, and interest including solatium per Section 80. Counsel relied on Dalco Engineering Pvt. Ltd. v. Satish Prabhakar Padhye, (2010) 4 SCC 378 and Umesh Chand Vinod Kumar v. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, (1993) SCC OnLine Allhabad 638 to argue maintainability, but the Court was not satisfied. Holding the petition not maintainable at the instance of petitioner No.1, the Court found the unregistered association lacked a valid existence: there were no records of institution of members or bye-laws, and the annexed resolution bore signatures only of the President and Secretary, with no member signatures at page No.40, so the association was not duly authorised to espouse the farmers' cause. Affected farmers were left free to raise their grievance in the appropriate forum, and the petitioners may pursue the grievance registered in the Chief Minister's Grievance Cell on 12.01.2025.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 5267 of 2025

¶3

1. Farmers Association Banki represented through its President Shri Dillip Ku. Jena

¶4

2. Rushi Rout

¶5

…. Petitioners

¶6

3. Ghanashyam Jena

¶7

Mr. Samarendra Beura, Advocate -versus-

¶8

1. State of Odisha

¶9

2. The Collector & District Magistrate

¶10

3. The Tahasildar Damapada 4. The Addl. Chief Secretary

¶11

…. Opp. Parties

¶12

Mr. J. Nayak, A.G.A.

¶13

CORAM:

¶14

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. K. SAHOO

¶15

THE HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO

ORDER

Order No.

12.03.2025

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

¶20

This writ petition has been filed by the Farmers Association, Banki through President Dillip Ku. Jena as petitioner No.1, Rushi Rout as petitioner No.2 and Ghanashyam Jena as petitioner No.3 with the following prayer:-

¶21

“In this above premises, it is most respectfully prayed

¶22

that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:-

¶23

Page 1 of 5

¶24

a. Call for the records pertaining to the matter under challenge and issue a rule nisi, directing the opposite parties to show cause as to why the relief sought by the petitioners should not be granted and if the opposite parties failure to show cause or show insufficient cause;

¶25

b. Issue an appropriate writ, order(s) or direction(s), more particularly a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Opposite Parties to initiate the Land Acquisition proceedings under Section-11 and Section-15 of the Right to Fair Compensation, Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; and

¶26

c. Issue an appropriate writ, order(s) or direction(s), more particularly a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Opposite Parties to compensate affected farmer members of the petitioners immediately and adequately in accordance with the Right to Fair Compensation, Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 taking all the relevant parameters into consideration as mandated under Section-28 and 30 of the said Act; and

¶27

d. Issue an appropriate writ, order(s) or direction(s), directing the Opposite Parties to provide interest on the entire amount of compensation including solatium as per Section-80 to the affected farmer members of the petitioners for the whole period for which the State Government was in illegal possession over their land; and

¶28

e. Pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.”

¶29

Page 2 of 5

¶30

When the matter is taken up on 10.03.2025, the learned counsel for the petitioners filed the written note of submission regarding the maintainability along with some citations and copies thereof have been served on learned counsel for the State.

¶31

In this writ petition it is stated in paragraph No.2 that petitioner No.1 is an unregistered association of affected farmers formed under Article 19 (1) (c) of the Constitution of India and is competent to pursue the litigation on behalf of the affected land owners being the large body of the persons with common grievances.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioners drew the attention of this Court to Annexure-4 which is the resolution No.1 wherein it is mentioned that “we undersigned, the members of „Farmers Association Banki‟ authorize and appoint Shri Dillip Kumar Jena, President to act as Convenor”. However, no signatures of the members of the association are appearing in page No.40. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners placing reliance on the decisions of Dalco Engineering Pvt. Ltd. vs. Satish Prabhakar Padhye & Ors. (2010) 4 SCC 378 so also Umesh Chand Vinod Kumar & Ors. Vs. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Bharthana & Anr. (1993) SCC OnLine Allhabad 638 , submitted that at the instance of these 3 petitioners the writ petition is maintainable, but we are not satisfied with such submission.

¶33

Page 3 of 5

¶34

An unregistered Association has filed the writ petition. There is no document relating to the institution of the members of the Association or framing of any bye-laws. The resolution annexed to the writ petition does not contain the signatures of the members except that of the President and Secretary. These facts are absolutely necessary for inferring that the petitioner No.1 is espousing the cause of non-payment of compensation amount for the acquisition of land duly authorized by its members. Neither any document nor pleadings are available on record reflecting the intention of the socalled members and authorization to the petitioner No.1.

¶35

We are therefore of the view that the petitioner No.1 Association does not have a valid existence so as to maintain this petition. This writ petition is not maintainable at the instance of petitioner No.1.

¶36

It is up to the farmers who have been allegedly affected due to the non-receipt of the compensation amount in spite of acquisition of land, to raise their grievance in the appropriate forum.

¶37

It appears that one legal notice has been served vide Annexure-5 to the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue & Disaster Management Dept., Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Water Resources, Collector & District Magistrate, Cuttack, Superintending Engineer, Khurda Irrigation Division and from Annexure-6 it appears that a

¶38

Page 4 of 5

¶39

grievance has been registered in the Chief Minister‟s Grievance cell on 12.01.2025.

¶40

It is open to the petitioners to pursue such grievance if so advised.

¶41

(S. K. Sahoo) JUDGE

¶42

(Savitri Ratho) JUDGE

¶43

Subhalaxmi

¶44

Signature Not Verified

¶45

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHALAXMI PRIYADARSHANI SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 13-Mar-2025 21:01:38

¶46

Page 5 of 5

Farmers Association,Banki v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Farmers Association,Banki v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sitamani Dey Vs State of Odisha

Basanta Kumar Dhal Vs State of Orissa

Santosh Kumar Mohapatra Vs State of Odisha

Mukunda Chandra Parida Vs Land Acquisition Officer Cum Collector , Mayurbhanj

Atanu Ghosh Vs Union of India

Kamala Naik Vs State of Odisha