IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.7341 OF 2026 Krishna Mohapatra and another …. Petitioners Mr. Gobinda Chandra Das, Advocate -versus- Collector, Cuttack and others …. Opp. Parties Mr. Swayambhu Mishra, Additional Standing Counsel CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA ORDER Order No. 06.04.2026 01. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Petitioners, in this writ petition, prays for the following relief. “It is therefore being prayed that the Honourable court may graciously be pleased to direct the Opposite party No2 to refer the L.A. case N 12 of 2014 to the Designated Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Cuttack, for enhancement of the compensation amount and further be pleased to direct to give benefit U/s 31 of the rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, for the end’s of justice. And Pass any other order/order(s) direction as it may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. And for this act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray”. 3. In course of argument Mr. Das, learned counsel for the Petitioners could not produce any material to show that Annexure-2 was in fact filed on 29th July, 2019 by his father namely, Narendra Kumar Mohapatra before the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Rengali Right Canal Mahisapat, Dhenkanal. He, however, submits that it was, in fact, filed by the father of the Petitioner in the Office of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Rengali Right Canal Mahisapat, Dhenkanal. 3. Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel submits that Annexure-2 and Annexure-4 series have been manufactured to make out a case in favour of the Petitioners. There is no document to show that these representations and two letters were in fact filed before the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Rengali Right Canal Mahisapat, Dhenkanal. 4. At this stage, Mr. Das, learned counsel for the Petitioners prays for withdrawal of writ petition to avail remedy, if any, before the Competent Authority under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. 5. Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel submits that though he has no objection to the prayer for withdrawal of the writ petition but any petition at such a belated stage under the provisions of the aforesaid Act would not be maintainable. 6. This Court, therefore, without expressing any opinion of the merits of case of the Petitioners disposes of the writ petition as withdrawn. (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge (S.K. Mishra) Judge Sashikant