p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 20201 OF 2025 Akshaya Kumar Rout and others …. Petitioners Mr. Sashibhusan Das, 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 4. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. The Petitioners in this writ petition pray for the following relief: “It is, therefore, prayed that Your Lordships would be graciously pleased to admit this writ application, call for the records and issue a rule-nisi, asking the opposite parties to show cause as to why they shall not issue an order or clarification that as per Section 24(2) of “The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013” and law, settled by Apex Court, the land acquisition proceeding of 1991 fir 2nd Steel Plant at Jajpur, under Act No.1 of 1894 in respect of unutilized land of Jajpur District, Sukinda Tahasil, Baragadia Mouza Khata Award No.21/1 for Khata No.32, Award No.61/Kha for Khata No.80 and Award Nos.43/1, 43/2 and 43/5 for Khata No.59, which the Petitioners are possessing till now, has ‘lapsed’ and ended, and absolutely free for use by Petitioners; and pass an order for a clarification/return of title of the said unutilized land by an appropriate writ/order/direction; And/or to pass any other appropriate order/direction in the facts and circumstances of the case, affording justice to Petitioners; Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: SENIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 13-Jan-2026 10:29:01 Signature Not Verified p. 2 And for this act of kindness, Petitioners shall as in duty bound ever pray.” 3. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that in spite of his best efforts, he could not arrange the required documents in support of the case of the Petitioners. It is further submitted that vide order dated 16th October, 2025, this Court while adjourning the matter, made it clear that no further prayer for adjournment at the instance of the Petitioners shall be entertained on the next date. Hence, he prays for withdrawal of the writ petition seeking liberty to file a fresh one with better particulars, whenever the documents would be available. He also files a memo in support of his submission, which is taken on record. 4. Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel does not have any objection to the prayer for withdrawal of the writ petition. He, however, submits that liberty to the Petitioners should not be given to file a fresh writ petition that too whenever they desire. 5. Taking into consideration the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is permitted to be withdrawn with a liberty to the Petitioners to file a fresh one with better particulars within a period of one month hence. It is made clear that no writ petition with same cause of action shall be entertained after one month from today. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge (S.K. Mishra) ms Judge Designation: SENIOR STENOGRAPHER