p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C). NO.24988 OF 2025 Arnapurna Das and another …. Petitioners Mr. Paramananda Jyotish, Advocate -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. 12.01.2026 05. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. The Petitioners in this writ petition prays for the following relief:- “It is therefore prayed that; this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased: i. To admit the Writ Petition. ii. To call for the objections and calculation details from the Opp. Party No. 1 to 3 with lawful documents. iii. To direct the Opp. Party No. 1 to 3 most particularly the Opp. Party No.3 to remand these matters before the RFCTLAR&R Authority Court Cuttack for proper and fair adjudication of the petition U/S-64 filed by the petitioners before the Opp. Party No.3 as per law. p. 2 And may pass such other judgement which will be deem fit and proper for the interest of natural Justice. And for which act of Honour’s kindness, the petitioners shall as in duty bound every pray.” 3. The matter was listed on 03.12.2025, on which date, Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel stated that the application filed by the Petitioners under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, (for brevity, ‘the Act’), was disposed of prior to filing of the writ petition. Thus, the relief sought for in the writ petition no more survives to be considered. 3.1 Accordingly, the State Counsel was directed to file an affidavit. 4. An affidavit of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, MIP (Major Industrial Project), Paradeep in the district of Jagatsinghpur has been filed enclosing the order dated 25.08.2025 passed under Section 64 of the Act (Annexure- A/3 series). 5. Mr. Jyotish, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the order dated 25.08.2025 is not sustainable in law. 6. Upon hearing learned Counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the relief sought for in the writ petition no more survives to be considered, as the application under Section 64 of the Act was disposed of prior to filing of the writ petition. 7. Veracity of the order passed under Section 64 of the Act may be challenged in any appropriate proceeding, if so advised. p. 3 8. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of. (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge (S.K. Mishra) Judge Kanhu Designation: Junior Stenographer Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.