Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Orissa · body

2025 DAILYLAW 22902 (ORI)

PRAMOD PANDA v. THE STATE OF ODISHA

WP(C)/8751/2020 · 2025-07-29

K R Mohapatra, Miss Savitri Ratho

Writ Petition (Civil)body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 8751 OF 2020 Pramod Panda …. Petitioner Mr. Biswa Prakash Dhal, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opp. Parties Mr. Siba Narayan Biswal, Additional Standing Counsel (For Opp. Party Nos.1 to 3) Mr. Sabyasachi Mishra, Advocate (For Opp. Party No.4) CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO ORDER Order No. 29.07.2025 5. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. This matter is listed in the Special Cause List prepared for the purpose of Special Mediation Drive-Mediation ‘For the Nation’. 3. This writ petition has been filed with the following prayer: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the writ application, call for the records from the learned court below and issue notices to the opposite parties as to why the award passed by the learned opposite party No.3 shall not be referred to the competent civil court under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and on their failure to show cause or showing insufficient cause, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus with a direction to the opposite party No.3 to refer the Petition Misc. Case No.l of 2013 to the competent civil court for proper Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 30-Jul-2025 10:18:55 Signature Not Verified adjudication of the matter and may further be pleased to pass such other / further order or orders, direction directions or issue appropriate writ(s), or in the facts and circumstances of the present case. And for this act of kindness the petitioner, as in duty bound shall ever pray.” 4. Mr. Dhal, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that in the meantime, awarded amount has already been released. Hence, the matter has become infructuous. He also files a memo in support of his submission in Court, which is taken on record. 5. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.4 does not have any objection to the same. 6. In view of such submission, the writ petition is disposed of as infructuous. (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge (Savitri Ratho) ms Judge