Where a writ petition seeking mandamus and quashing of a government order is withdrawn by the petitioner before adjudication on merits, the High Court’s dismissal as withdrawn establishes no new legal principle, is not binding on future cases, and does not disturb existing precedent governing compensation claims in land acquisition or resettlement matters.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP(C)/4877/2023 of KANAK NAG Vs STATE OF ODISHA |
| CNR | ODHC010124862023 |
| Date of Registration | 17-02-2023 |
| Decision Date | 28-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off (Dismissed as withdrawn) |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE K.R.MOHAPATRA, MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO |
| Court | Orissa High Court |
| Bench | JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA, JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO |
| Type of Law | Administrative Law / Land Acquisition / Resettlement & Compensation |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner sought to quash an order dated 17.01.2023 and direct compensation as an affected family, with interest; during hearing, counsel sought withdrawal, so petition dismissed as withdrawn. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | None – Order of withdrawal, not an adjudication on merits. |
| Persuasive For | None – Not a decision on legal or factual issues. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The writ petition was withdrawn before judicial determination; therefore, there is no ruling on the propriety of compensation or quashing of the impugned order.
- No legal precedent is set by the withdrawal order; lawyers cannot cite it as authority for or against compensation or resettlement rights.
- For issues relating to compensation and affected family status under government acquisition/resettlement, this order holds no precedential value.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court recorded that during arguments, counsel for the petitioner sought to withdraw the petition.
- Without entering into the merits or offering any reasoning on the legal or factual controversies, the Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn.
- No interpretation of legal principles, statutes, or authorities was undertaken, and factual or legal disputes remain unresolved.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Sought quashing of order dated 17.01.2023.
- Prayed for direction to treat the petitioner as an affected family and release compensation with interest.
- (During argument) Petitioner’s counsel withdrew the writ petition.
Respondent
- No submissions or arguments by the State/Opposite Parties are recorded in the judgment.
Factual Background
The petitioner moved the High Court under Article 226 seeking quashing of an order dated 17.01.2023 related to resettlement and rehabilitation, and a mandamus directing payment of compensation with interest as an affected family. The petition related to actions by governmental authorities connected with the Lower Suktel Irrigation Project, Balangir. At the stage of arguments, petitioner’s counsel sought to withdraw the writ petition, leading to its dismissal as withdrawn without examination on merits.
Statutory Analysis
- No statutory provision was interpreted or applied; the Court did not address any question relating to the Resettlement & Rehabilitation Act, Land Acquisition Act, or any relevant notification.
- No discussion of Article 226 powers or requirements.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
- None—unanimous, per curiam dismissal on withdrawal.
Procedural Innovations
- No innovation; the procedure followed was standard: permitting withdrawal of the writ petition at the request of counsel before hearing on merits.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Routine order on withdrawal; no new legal rule.