Lokanath Pradhan v. State of Odisha & Ors.

Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Muduli, AGA CORAM: DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI MR. JUSTICE B.P. SATAPATHY ORDER 18.01.2023 Order No. 03. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

Heard Mr. A. Tripathy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. P.K. Muduli, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties, and Ms. Jyotsnamayee Sahoo, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for opposite party no.4.

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking direction to opposite party no.3 to award compensation in favour of him as per the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 for the land acquired by the railway authority for the purpose of Khorda Road-Bolangir Broad Guage Rail Link Project.

Mr. A. Tripathy, learned counsel appearing for petitioner contends that though for the acquisition of the petitioner’s land by the railway authority for the purpose of Khorda Road-Bolangir Broad Guage Rail Link Project the amount of compensation has been determined, but the same has not been paid to the petitioner.

A counter affidavit has been filed by opposite party no.3, wherein it has been stated that one Swarnalata Pradhan, who is the daughter of the recorded tenant, has filed C.S. No.118 of 2016 in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Nayagarh and the said case is under trial. In view of such position, unless the said matter is disposed of, the amount of compensation cannot be disbursed in favour of the petitioner.

Ms. Jyotsnamayee Sahoo, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for opposite party no.4 contended admittedly the land of the petitioner has been acquired for the purpose of drawing railway line and, as such, the claim of compensation as made by the petitioner in the present writ petition will be subject to the decision taken in C.S. No. 118 of 2016 pending on the file of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Nayagarh. When that case is pending, the petitioner’s claim for compensation, as made in this writ petition, cannot be granted.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, this Court is of the considered view that since dispute with regard to the land in question is pending before learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Nayagarh in C.S. No. 118 of 2016, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to pursue his remedy before the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Nayagarh and after disposal of C.S. No. 118 of 2016 he can claim for compensation as due and admissible to him.

With the above observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.

Issue urgent certified copy as per rules. (DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE (B.P. SATAPATHY) JUDGE GDS