p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK RVWPET No.254 of 2025 Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., Sambalpur and others …. Petitioners Mr.S.Das,Sr. Advocate along with Mr.D.Mohanty, Advocate -versus- Sunita Goenka …. Opposite Party Mr.U.K.Samal, Sr.Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY ORDER 10.03.2026 Order No. I.A.No.420 of 2025 5. 1. Upon hearing Mr.Das along with Mr.Mohanty and Mr.Samal, learned Senior Counsels for respective parties, delay in filing the review petition is condoned. 2. The I.A. is disposed of. 3. Heard Mr.S.Das, learned Senior Counsel along with Mr.D.Mohanty, learned counsel for the review petitioner and Mr.U.K.Samal, learned Senior Advocate for the writ petitioner. 4. Present review petitioner has sought review of the order dated 21st July 2025 of this Court on the ground that no such concession Digitally Signed Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa HIgh Court, Cuttack Date: 17-Mar-2026 20:01:06 Signature Not Verified p. 2 was made by the Opposite Parties (MCL) regarding the survey, either conducted or not conducted, in respect of the case land. But this Court in paragraph-5 of the order has stated that “If it is the opinion of the Opposite Parties that no survey has been conducted in respect of such plots relating to the claim of the Petitioner then there would be no harm in conducting the survey of the land in question irrespective of the entitlement of the claimant in respect of the property.” 5. Mr.Das, learned Senior Counsel in course of hearing takes to paragraph-3 of the petition filed by the claimant dated 5th July 2023 to point out that it has been admitted on the part of the claimant that the survey has been conducted in respect of the suit land. 6. Paragraphs-3 & 4 of said petition of claimant reads as follows: “3. That the Opp.parties in the absence of the petitioner have conducted a survey of the suit land and prepared the survey report. From a bare perusal of the documents under Ext.9 & Ext.E, it is made clear that the opp.parties have awarded the compensation not only for the land but also for the trees. 4. That the opp.parties have filed the Yadast (survey report) under Ext.O where it has been mentioned that the existence of trees over Plot No.157 and 168, that apart the factory i.e. “Shree Minerals and Metals” is existing over plot No.168. As it appears from the Yadast the survey team conducted the survey on 05.04.2019 and has taken note of assets attached to the suit acquired land i.e. plot No.157(P) & 168(P) of Khata No.22. The details of the value of the assets i.e. Plant, Machineries, Equipment, Klin and Chimneys, Digitally Signed Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa HIgh Court, Cuttack Date: 17-Mar-2026 20:01:06 Signature Not Verified p. 3 other structures as per the survey be produced before this Hon’ble Tribunal.” 7. But it is necessary here to look into the prayer of the claimant in said petition. The claimant in his petition dated 5th July 2023 has prayed for production of the survey report in respect of the Plant, Machineries, Equipment, Klin and Chimneys and other structures over Plot No.157(P) and 168(P) under Khata No.22, or in the alternative to direct the Opposite Parties to conduct the survey. For better appreciation, the said prayer of the claimant is reproduced below: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to direct the opp.parties to produce the survey report in respect of Plant, Machineries, Equipment, Kiln and Chimneys other structures over Khata No.22, Plot No.157(P) and 168(P) of Mouza-Karlajori if the survey has already conducted or to direct the opp.parties to conduct the survey and submit the market value of the assets i.e. Plant, Machineries, Equipment, Kiln and Chimneys, other structures attached to the suit land.” 8. It is thus seen that the contention of the claimant made at paragraph 3 & 4 is regarding the survey conducted in respect of the suit land, whereas the prayer of the claimant is relating to survey in respect of the plant, machineries etc. situating over the suit land. Undoubtedly, these are two different things and therefore, the submission made on behalf of the review petitioner (MCL) that the survey has already been conducted in respect of the prayer of the Petitioner is not found to be a fact correct on record. Copy of the Yadast produced at Annexure-13 to the writ petition does not speak of the survey conducted in respect of the plant, machineries and other constructions standing over the suit land. Thus, no need is found to review the order of this Court dated 21st July 2025. Digitally Signed Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa HIgh Court, Cuttack Date: 17-Mar-2026 20:01:06 p. 4 However, the said order can never be construed to infer that any such concession has been made on the part of the review petitioner (MCL) that no survey has been conducted. Accordingly, the review petition is disposed of confirming the earlier order. ( B.P. Routray) Judge C.R. Biswal