BIJOY KUMAR PANDA v. UNION OF INDIA
Court: High Court of Orissa
Bench: MR. JUSTICE K.R.MOHAPATRA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Orissa judgment dated 2026-04-08. BIJOY KUMAR PANDA v. UNION OF INDIA. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W. P. (C) No. 9287 of 2026 Bijoy Kumar Panda …. Petitioners Mr. Ghanashyam Banji, Advocate -versus- Union of India and Others …. Opp. Parties Mr. Ajay Kumar Roy, Senior Panel Counsel (For O. P. No. 1) CORAM: JUSTICE K. R. MOHAPATRA JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA ORDER Order No. 08. 04. 2026 01. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Appearance memo filed by Mr. Ajay Kumar Roy, learned Senior Panel Counsel is taken on record. 3. Petitioner in this writ petition prays for following reliefs. : Prayer “It is therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court be graciously pleased to: i) Admit the writ application. ii) Issue notice to the Opposite Parties and call for the records. iii) After hearing all the parties issue writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ to quash/set aside the filed verification report passed by the Tahasildar, Bargarh. iv) Recommendation made by the Collector to the National High way Authorities.
And the 3G proposal and all consequential actions. v) Issue a writ of Mandamus restraining the Opposite Parties from disbursing compensation to O. P. vi) Direct fresh adjudication after hearing the Petitioner. vii) And/or pass such other order/orders, direction/directions as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper for the ends of justice. And for the said act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray. ” 4. It is submitted by Mr. Banji, learned Counsel for the Petitioner that although the Opposite Party Nos. 5 to 15 are not entitled to compensation for structure standing over the land acquired but the award under Section 3-G of the National Highways Act, 1956 has been made awarding compensation for structure standing over the land in their favour. Hence, this writ petition has been filed. 5. In course of hearing, Mr.
Banji, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has remedy under Section 3- H(4) of the Act to refer the matter to the Principal Civil Court having jurisdiction for adjudication of redressal of his grievances. 6. In view of such prayer, the writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn with an observation that the Petitioner, if so advised may avail remedy under Section 3-H(4) of the Act for redressal of his grievances before the competent authority for land acquisition. (K. R. Mohapatra) Judge (S. K. Mishra) Judge Banita
Source: High Court of Orissa. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.