ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 12449 of 2022 · Orissa High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Mr. D. Nayak, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that for such purpose he can approach the appropriate authority as provided under Section 64 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 who can in turn refer the…
- Para 55. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Judge (Biswajit Mohanty) Judge (Savitri Ratho) // 3 //
Judgment
Mr. Somadarsan Mohanty, Advocate State of Odisha & Others -versus- …. Opp. Parties Mr. D. Nayak, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE BISWAJIT MOHANTY MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO Order No. ORDER 20.07.2022
Heard Mr. Somadarsan Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. Nayak, learned Additional Government Advocate.
According to Mr. Mohanty, while calculating the compensation amount under Annexure-4, the authority has ignored the notification dated 09.02.2016 issued by the Central Government making it clear that the factor by which the market value is to be determined in case of rural areas should be two instead of one. According to him, the said notification reads as follows:- the Right
S.O. 425 (E)- In exercise of the powers conferred by column no.3 of serial no.2 of the First Schedule read with sub-section (2) of section 30 to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (No.30 of 2013), the Central Government, hereby, notifies that in case of rural areas, the factor by which the market value is to be multiplied shall be 2.00 (two).
// 2 // In such grounds, he submits that the petitioner is entitled to more compensation.
Mr. D. Nayak, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that for such purpose he can approach the appropriate authority as provided under Section 64 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 who can in turn refer the matter to the Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Settlement Authority as constituted under Section 51 of the above noted Act. Accordingly he submits that since an efficacious alternative remedy is available, the writ petition should not be entertained.
Considering the submission that an alternative remedy is available to the petitioner for redressal of his grievances, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition. Petitioner if so advised may approach appropriate forum in the matter.
Operative part
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Judge (Biswajit Mohanty) Judge (Savitri Ratho) // 3 //
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.