IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 35697 OF 2025 Sanjukta Nahak …. Petitioner Mr. Santosh Kumar Dash, Advocate -versus-

State of Odisha and others …. Opp. Parties Mr. Siba Narayan Biswal, Additional Standing Counsel CORAM:

JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO

ORDER

Order No. 23.12.2025

2. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. The Petitioner in this writ petition seeks to assail the order dated 10^th November, 2023 (Annexure-5) passed by the Project Director (R & R), Lower Suktel Irrigation Project, Balangir-

Opposite Party No.5.

3. It is submitted by Mr. Dash, learned counsel that the Petitioner is a land oustee for acquisition of her land for the Lower Suktel Irrigation Project, Balangir. Since the land of the Petitioner was acquired under the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for brevity ‘the Act’), she is entitled to the benefit under the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, 2006. Accordingly, the Petitioner made an application for the said benefit. The grievance of the Petitioner was not entertained for which she disposed of with an observation/direction as under:

“5. As agreed by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, disposes of the Writ Petition directing Opposite Party No.5 to consider the representation filed by the petitioner vide Annexure-2 and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.”

Accordingly, order under Annexure-5 has been passed by the Project Director (R & R), Lower Suktel Irrigation Project, Balangir-

Opposite Party No.5.

4. Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the representation of the Petitioner was rejected on the ground that the Petitioner was staying at a different village at the time of acquisition of her land. Thus, she does not come within the definition of family for being extended with the benefit under the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy. Mr. Dash, learned counsel, however, submits that in view of Section 3(c) of the Act, the Petitioner is entitled to the benefit under the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy. Hence, this writ petition has been filed assailing the order under Annexure-5.

5. Mr. Biswal, learned Additional Standing Counsel, on instruction, reiterated the grounds on which the representation of the Petitioner was rejected vide order under Annexure-5.

6. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court feels that the Petitioner should have filed an application under Section 64 of the Act to refer the matter to the Authority for consideration of the prayer for benefit under the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy. Without availing such remedy, she filed a representation before the Project Director (R & R), Lower Suktel Irrigation Project, Balangir-Opposite Party No.5 on 9^th October, 2023. In the process, more than one year has already elapsed.

7. But, keeping in mind the valuable right of the Petitioner to avail the remedy under Section 64 of the Act and that due to wrong advice, statutory period for availing such remedy has already been elapsed, this Court feels that the Petitioner should be given another opportunity to avail remedy under Section 64 of the Act. Keeping in mind the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court directs that in the event the Petitioner files an application under Section 64 of the Act within a period of two weeks hence along with a certified copy of this order, her application shall be entertained for taking a decision to refer the matter to the Authority for adjudication.

8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of.

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

(K.R. Mohapatra)

Judge (Savitri Ratho)

Subhalaxmi Judge Sig