SHAKUNTALA PRADHAN @ PATRA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above noted 21 writ applications have been filed mainly challenging the preliminary notifications published under Section 11(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement, Act, 2013, for short, the "Act" by the opposite party no.1. The petitioners have also prayed for direction to the opposite party no.1 to follow the "Act" strictly read with "1958 Act". Such preliminary notifications challenged in W.P(C) Nos.3059, 4388, 4459, 5093, 5094, 5095, 5096, 5097, 5098, 5099, 5100, 5104, 5409, 5410, 5411 and 6035 of 2015 pertain to mouza Chudanga Sahi and is concerned with Land Acquisition Case No.5 of 2015. In W.P.(C) No.4830 of 2015 the petitioner has challenged the preliminary notification pertaining to mouza Basuli Sahi connected with Land Acquisition Case No.4 of 2015. In W.P(C ) No.4829 of 2015, W.P.(C ) No.5101 of 2015, W.P.(C ) No.5102 of 2015 and W.P(C ) No.5103 of 2015, the petitioners have challenged the preliminary notifications pertaining to mouza Manikanika Sahi covering Land Acquisition Case No.3 of 2015.

(2.) With regard to L.A. Case No.3 of 2015, a perusal of records reveals that all the four writ applications, namely, W.P(C) Nos.4829, 5101, 5102 and 5103 of 2015 have been filed much after the Collector (opposite party no.3) pronounced his order/report with regard to objections on 10.3.2015.

(3.) At the outset it is made clear that learned counsel for the parties agreed and submitted that since issues involved in all these writ petitions are one and the same, be taken as lead case in which the pleadings are complete. Learned counsel for the parties also agreed that the decisions rendered in W.P(C) No.3059 of 2015 would govern all the cases.