Disposed¶38

Ratnakar Nayak v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC4 Apr 2025WP(C)/5836/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Land acquisition compensation; Section 64 RFCTLARR Act 2013 (reference to Authority; 30-day reference; six-week/six-month application periods; section 21 notice); absence of written application under Section 64; representation Annexure-6 dated 01.10.2024; Zone Officer-cum-L.A. Collector Mayurbhanj; Govt. Bench Mark Valuation; withdrawal of writ petition with liberty to file better application; Orissa High Court 2025; W.P.(C) No.5836 of 2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of as withdrawn, with liberty to the petitioner to file a better application before the opp. party no.2 (Zone Officer-cum-L.A. Collector, Mayurbhanj). ¶38

Ratnakar Nayak Vs State of Odisha — Land Acquisition | Orissa HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.5836 of 2025

¶3

Ratnakar Nayak

¶4

….. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. Manoj Ojha, Advocate

¶6

- versus -

¶7

State of Orissa and others

¶8

..... Opp. Parties

¶9

Mr. Goutam Tripathy, Addl. Govt. Advocate

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO

¶12

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Order No. 04.04.2025

¶15

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

¶16

Heard.

¶17

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:-

¶18

Signature Not Verified

¶19

Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Designation: Senior StenographerReason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 05-Apr-2025 14:15:51

¶20

“It is, therefore prayed that, this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit this Writ petition, issue notice to the opp. parties and after hearing from the parties, issue a Writ in the nature of certiorari or any other suitable form of writ and may kindly direct to the opp. parties to take necessary action regarding consideration of the representation

¶21

Page 1 of 4

¶22

under Annexure-6 and re-estimate the quantum of the compensation amount as per the Govt. Bench Mark Valuation and nearest vicinity area for the interest of justice.”

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a representation in that connection has been made by the petitioner under Annexure-6, which is dated 01.10.2024 before the Zone Officer -cumL.A. Collector, Mayurbhanj, opp. party no.2 but the matter has not been referred to the authority.

¶24

Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereafter, “2013 Act”) reads as follows:-

¶25

“(1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Authority, as the case may be, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the person to whom it is payable, the rights of Rehabilitation and Resettlement under Chapters V and VI or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested:

¶26

Provided that the Collector shall, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of application, make a reference to the appropriate Authority:

¶27

Page 2 of 4

¶28

Provided further that where the Collector fails to make such reference within the period so specified, the applicant may apply to the Authority, as the case may be, requesting it to direct the Collector to make the reference to it within a period of thirty days.

¶29

(2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken:

¶30

Provided that every such application shall be made-

¶31

(a) if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the Collector’s award;

¶32

(b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under section 21, or within six months from the date of the Collector’s award, whichever period shall first expire:

¶33

Provided further that the Collector may entertain an application after the expiry of the said period, within a further period of one year, if he is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within the period specified in the first proviso.”

¶34

Admittedly, the petitioner has not submitted any written application in terms of the provision under section 64 of the 2013 Act.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this writ petition to file a better application before the opp. party no.2.

¶36

Page 3 of 4

¶37

Permission is granted.

¶38

In view of such submission, the writ petition stands disposed of as withdrawn granting liberty to the petitioner to file a better application before the opp. party no.2.

¶39

Issue urgent certified copy as per Rules.

¶40

( S.K. Sahoo)

¶41

Judge

¶42

(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge

¶43

sipun

¶44

Page 4 of 4

Ratnakar Nayak v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ratnakar Nayak 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

Madan Kanhar@Mitu Vs State

Raja Goud Vs State of Odisha

Khira Sindhu Majhi Vs State of Odisha

Kamalini Senapati Vs Union of India

Jani Senapati Vs Union of India

Makardhwaja Samarath Vs M.C.L.,Sambalpur