The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 19603 of 2022 Sk. Shafi …. Petitioner Mr. B K. Nayak, Advocate 1. State of Odisha, -versus- represented by the Secretary to the Govt. Fisheries and Animal Resources Department, Bhubaneswar 2. Director, AHVS Department, Odisha, Cuttack 3. Chief District Veterinary Officer, Nabarangpur 4. Collector, Nabarangpur. …. Opposite Parties
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Sabita Ranjan Pattanaik, Additional Government Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
Decision
ORDER 14.10.2025 Order No. 06. 1. 2. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. Petitioner in this writ petition prays for a direction to the Opposite Parties to pay compensation to the Petitioner for utilization of his land for construction of Veterinary Assistant Surgeon Office and Staff Quarters. 3. Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that Annexure-2, the letter dated 8th June, 2017 of the Additional District Magistrate, Nabarangpur to the Chief District Veterinary Page 1 of 5 Officer, Nabarangpur clearly indicates that Plot No.3098 under Khata No.3393 to an extent of Ac.2.00 decimal in Nabarangpur Mouza (for brevity, the ‘case land’) in the district of Nabarangpur stood recorded in the name of the Petitioner. The case land was utilized for construction of office of the Veterinary Assistant Surgeon and Staff Quarters. No compensation was paid to the Petitioner for utilization of his land. Hence, the Additional District Magistrate vide letter under Annexure-2 requested the Chief District Veterinary Officer, Nabarangpur to submit proposal to initiate proceeding under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) after obtaining prior approval from the Department. 3.1. It is his submission that though a stand has been taken by the Chief District Veterinary Officer, Nabarangpur in its counter affidavit to the extent that compensation of ₹1178.20 was paid to the grandfather of the Petitioner in the year 1954, but no document to that effect is available on record. Such a stand has been taken only to frustrate the claim of the Petitioner and deny him the legitimate compensation for utilization of the case land. Hence, finding no alternative, the writ petition has been filed. 4. Mr. Pattanaik, learned Additional Government Advocate referring to the counter affidavit filed by the Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 4 submits that Letter No.4010/49 dated 17th April, 1954 (Annexure B/3) written by the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Nabarangpur to the Tahasildar, Nabarangpur clearly indicates that the possession of the land under acquisition has been taken by the Page 2 of 5 Veterinary Department and the occupier accepted the compensation awarded. Thus, he submits that compensation was paid to the grandfather of the Petitioner, who was the occupier of the land. Further, the land being erroneously recorded in the name of the Petitioner, a revision under Section 15 (b) of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 was filed before the Collector, Nabarangpur in OSSA Revision Case No.358 of 2018. The Collector, Nabarangpur in his order dated 11th February, 2021 allowed the said revision and directed to record the land in favour of Chief District Veterinary Officer, Nabarangpur, Veterinary Department, Government of Odisha and to prepare the RoR accordingly. In the said order, it was categorically observed that the Chief District Veterinary Officer relied upon photocopies of notification dated 23rd February, 1954(2), Letter No.1777 dated 24th April, 1954 of RDO, Nabarangpur for payment of compensation and letter of RDO, Nabarangpur to the Tahasildar, Nabarangpur for delivery of land for construction of dispensary, letter dated 21st July, 1954 regarding delivery of possession of the case land and letter of the Tahasildar, Nabarangpur to Additional District Magistrate, Nabarangur vide Letter No.3354 dated 17th November, 2016 as well as the Sabik RoR Khata No.24 along with other documents to show that adequate compensation was paid for accusation of the land. In fact, a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was made and following due procedure, compensation was awarded in favour of the grandfather of the Petitioner. Thus, a claim for compensation by the Petitioner at a belated stage is not entertainable and is liable to be rejected. Page 3 of 5 5. Taking note of the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the case land was utilized for construction of office of the Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, Nabarangpur and Staff Quarters. 6. It is submitted by Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the Petitioner that the land stood recorded in the name of the Petitioner. No acquisition proceeding was ever initiated for utilization of the case land. On the other hand, Mr. Pattanaik, learned Additional Government Advocate relying upon certain documents submits that there was notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and compensation of ₹1178.20 was paid to the grandfather of the Petitioner, namely, Mangal Alli Saheb, son of Mungal Parabeig under Nabarangpur Mouza. 6.1. It is his submission that the land was erroneously recorded in the name of the Petitioner, a revision under Section 15(b) of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 was filed by the Chief District Veterinary Officer, Nabarangpur and considering the matter in its proper prospective, a direction was made to correct the RoR to record the case land in the name of Chief District Veterinary Officer, Nabarangpur, Veterinary Department, Government of Odisha and to issue RoR accordingly. The said order passed in OSSA Revision Case No.358/2018 was not challenged by the Petitioner as fairly admitted by Mr. Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. 7. Thus, there being certain records to show that the case land was recorded in the name of Mangal Alli Saheb, son of Mungal Parabeig under Nabarangpur Mouza and subsequently, the Page 4 of 5 same was acquired under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and compensation of ₹1178.20 being paid to said Mongal Ali Saheb, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition only because the Additional District Magistrate in his letter under Annexure-2 stated that no document is available on record to show that there was sanction of acquisition of land. 8. In view of the above, the writ petition being devoid of merits stands dismissed. (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge (Savitri Ratho) Judge RKS Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RANJAN KUMAR SETHI Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 16-Oct-2025 18:52:04 Page 5 of 5