RUKMANI GIRI v. STATE
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 2026-04-10. RUKMANI GIRI v. STATE. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: SENIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 11-Apr-2026 09:35:20 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W. P. (C) No. 12273 OF 2014 Rukmani Giri …. Petitioner None -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opp. Parties Mr. Swayambhu Mishra, Additional Standing Counsel CORAM: JUSTICE K. R. MOHAPATRA JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA ORDER Order No. 10. 04. 2026 1. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. None appears for the Petitioner at the time of call. 3.
The Petitioner in this writ petition prays for the following relief: “It is, therefore, prayed that, in the premises stated above this Hon’ble court may be graciously pleased to admit his case, issue notice to the Opposite Parties and after hearing all the parties to this writ petition, may issue any mandamus, direction/directions, order/orders directing the opposite parties to adequately compensate the petitioner for acquisition of her land of A. 0. 60 decimal land out of Khatian No. 253/11, Plot no. 285, Mouza-Agaria, P. S. -Baisinga, Tehasil- Betanati, Dist- Mayurbhanj, for Subarnarekha irrigation Project, AT-Bahalda, Baripada, Dist-Mayurbhanj and also to provide her adequate alternative land. And may pass any other order/orders, direction/directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper; And for this act of kindness, the Petitioners as in duty bound shall ever pray.
” Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: SENIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 11-Apr-2026 09:35:20 4. Office note indicates that Defect Nos. 5,6 and 11, as per the SR, are not yet removed. 5. On perusal of the writ petition, it appears that the Petitioner has a grievance with regard to adequacy of compensation. Since the Petitioner had efficacious remedy under the statute for adequate compensation and Defect Nos. 5,6, and 11 have not yet been removed although the writ petition has been filed since 2014, we feel that the Petitioner has no more grievance to be raised in this writ petition. 6. Since none appears for the Petitioner to pursue the matter, the writ petition stands dismissed for non-prosecution. (K. R. Mohapatra) Judge (S. K. Mishra) ms Judge
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.