Sudarsan Nayak v. Commnr.-C-Secy.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

WP(C) No.20390 of 2013 Sudarsan Nayak and others ....

Petitioners Mr. A. Mohanty, Advocate -versusThe Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Govt. of Odisha, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Bhubaneswar and others ....

Opposite Parties Mr. D. K. Mohanty, AGA

CORAM:

THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE R. K. PATTANAIK

ORDER

08.08.2022 09.

1. It is pointed out in the counter affidavit that the present Order No.

Petitioners claiming to be subsequent purchaser of land from the original land owners did not even file an objection under Section 5(A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (L.A. Act) to the notification under Section 4 (1) of the L.A. Act. It is further pointed out that the declaration under Section 6(1) of the L.A. Act was issued way back on 22nd November, 2008 itself.

2. The award must have been passed quite some time ago although, it is not been mentioned such in the counter affidavit. If the Petitioners are aggrieved by payment of inadequate compensation or non-payment of compensation, it will be open to the Petitioners within the frame work of the L.A. Act read with the new 2013 Act to seek appropriate remedies in accordance with law.

3. The writ petition is disposed of.

(Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice (R. K. Pattanaik) Judge TUDU