Disposed¶28

Akshaya Kumar Rout v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC12 Jan 2026WP(C)/20201/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Withdrawal of writ petition with liberty to file afresh; time-bound refiling condition (one month); Section 24(2) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act 2013; lapse of 1991 land acquisition under Act No.1 of 1894; 2nd Steel Plant, Jajpur; Sukinda Tahasil; Baragadia Mouza; unutilized acquired land; return of title; Akshaya Kumar Rout; State of Odisha; adjournment barred by order dated 16 October 2025; no precedent case cited.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition permitted to be withdrawn, with liberty to file a fresh petition with better particulars within one month (same cause of action not entertainable thereafter); urgent certified copy of the order to be granted on proper application. ¶28

Akshaya Kumar Rout Vs State of Odisha — Land Acquisition | Orissa HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the land acquisition proceeding of 1991 for the 2nd Steel Plant at Jajpur (Baragadia Mouza, Sukinda Tahasil, Jajpur District; Award No.21/1 for Khata No.32, Award No.61/Kha for Khata No.80, Award Nos.43/1, 43/2 and 43/5 for Khata No.59), conducted under Act No. 1 of 1894 in respect of land possessed by the Petitioners, has lapsed and ended under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013 and law settled by the Apex Court, entitling the Petitioners to free use of and return of title to the unutilized land. (Raised in the Petitioners' prayer; not adjudicated, as the petition was withdrawn.)

¶20

Ratio / Principle

This writ petition is permitted to be withdrawn, with liberty to the Petitioners to file a fresh writ petition with better particulars within a period of one month.

¶28

Key takeaways

No writ petition with the same cause of action shall be entertained after one month from the date of this order.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P.(C) No. 20201 of 2025 (Orissa HC, Cuttack, K.R. Mohapatra & S.K. Mishra JJ., 12.01.2026) — Withdrawal. The Petitioners (Akshaya Kumar Rout and others) had prayed for an order/clarification that the 1991 land acquisition proceeding for the 2nd Steel Plant at Jajpur, under Act No.1 of 1894, covering unutilized land in Baragadia Mouza, Sukinda Tahasil, Jajpur District (Award No.21/1 for Khata No.32; Award No.61/Kha for Khata No.80; Award Nos.43/1, 43/2, 43/5 for Khata No.59), which they possess, has lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013 and law settled by the Apex Court, with return of title. At hearing, counsel for the Petitioners, unable to arrange supporting documents despite the earlier order dated 16th October 2025 barring further adjournments, sought withdrawal with liberty to refile; the Additional Standing Counsel raised no objection but opposed unrestricted liberty. The Court permitted withdrawal with liberty to file a fresh petition with better particulars within one month, making clear that no writ petition on the same cause of action would be entertained thereafter. No point on Section 24(2) lapse was decided; no precedent case was cited or discussed.

¶1

Signature Not Verified

¶2

Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: SENIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 13-Jan-2026 10:29:01

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶4

W.P.(C) No. 20201 OF 2025 …. Akshaya Kumar Rout and others

¶5

…. Petitioners

¶6

Mr. Sashibhusan Das, Advocate

¶7

-versus-

¶8

State of Odisha and others

¶9

…. Opp. Parties

¶10

Mr. Swayambhu Mishra, Additional Standing Counsel

¶11

CORAM:

¶12

JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA

¶13

JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA

ORDER

Order No.

12.01.2026

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶18

The Petitioners in this writ petition pray for the following

¶19

relief:

¶20

“It is, therefore, prayed that Your Lordships would be graciously pleased to admit this writ application, call for the records and issue a rule-nisi, asking the opposite parties to show cause as to why they shall not issue an order or clarification that as per Section 24(2) of “The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013” and law, settled by Apex Court, the land acquisition proceeding of 1991 fir 2^nd Steel Plant at Jajpur, under Act No.1 of 1894 in respect of unutilized land of Jajpur District, Sukinda Tahasil, Baragadia Mouza Khata Award No.21/1 for Khata No.32, Award No.61/Kha for Khata No.80 and Award Nos.43/1, 43/2 and 43/5 for Khata No.59, which the Petitioners are possessing till now, has ‘lapsed’ and ended, and absolutely free for use by Petitioners; and pass an order for a clarification/return of title of the said unutilized land by an appropriate writ/order/direction;

¶21

And/or to pass any other appropriate order/direction in the facts and circumstances of the case, affording justice to Petitioners;

¶22

Page 1 of 2

¶23

Signature Not Verified

¶24

Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: SENIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 13-Jan-2026 10:29:01

¶25

And for this act of kindness, Petitioners shall as in duty bound ever pray.”

¶26

Mr. Das, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that in spite of his best efforts, he could not arrange the required documents in support of the case of the Petitioners. It is further submitted that vide order dated 16^th October, 2025, this Court while adjourning the matter, made it clear that no further prayer for adjournment at the instance of the Petitioners shall be entertained on the next date. Hence, he prays for withdrawal of the writ petition seeking liberty to file a fresh one with better particulars, whenever the documents would be available. He also files a memo in support of his submission, which is taken on record.

¶27

Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel does not have any objection to the prayer for withdrawal of the writ petition. He, however, submits that liberty to the Petitioners should not be given to file a fresh writ petition that too whenever they desire.

¶28

Taking into consideration the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is permitted to be withdrawn with a liberty to the Petitioners to file a fresh one with better particulars within a period of one month hence. It is made clear that no writ petition with same cause of action shall be entertained after one month from today.

¶29

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

¶30

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

¶31

(S.K. Mishra) Judge

¶32

¶33

Page 2 of 2

Akshaya Kumar Rout v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akshaya Kumar Rout 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

Immauddin @Iman Husen Vs State of Odisha

Manjulata Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Subash Chandra Pani Vs the Competent Authority Cum Land Acquisition Officer, Nh, Khurda

Jagabandhu Chinda Vs Spl.Land Acquisition Officer, Lower Indra Irrigation Project, Nuapada

Arnapurna Das Vs State of Odisha

Amar Nath Das Vs State