Misc. Case No. 03 of 2014 · The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK LAA No. 35 of 2014 --------------------- An appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Sushanta Kumar Nayak and another … … Appellants -Versus- Special L.A.O., Angul-Duburi- Sukinda Road, New Broad Gauge Rail Link Project … … Respondent For Appellants : Mr. Niranjan Panda-1, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Sanjib Swain, AGA Mr. S. K. Dash, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. P. Dash, Advocate (for Intervenor) P R E S E N T: THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO Dates of hearing : 21.04.2025 and 05.05.2025 Date of judgment : 05.05.2025 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- M.S.SAHOO, J. Present LAA is listed and taken up along with LAA Nos.33 and 34 of 2014. All the parties to the respective appeals are represented by the same learned counsel. The facts of the appeals are identical. They arise from the same land Page 1 of 47 acquisition process, that is for construction of Angul-Duburi- Sukinda Road, New Broad Gauge Railway Line. Issues are also similar and identical. The question of law is also the same to be decided by this Court. LAA No.33 of 2014 was heard as the lead case. For effective utilization of available time all the appeals were taken up and heard together. The learned counsel for the parties who represented the parties in all the cases were heard at length. This appeal is disposed of by noting the contentions and arguments urged in all the appeals taken together. 1. The appeal U/s.54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been filed by the appellants challenging judgment dated 02.05.2014 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kamakshyanagar in L.A. Misc. Case No. 03 of 2014. Appellants were claimant-petitioners before the Court below in a reference that was made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer U/s.18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as dispute arose regarding the actual market price of the acquired land for determination of compensation. The Court, learned Civil LAA No. 35 of 2014 Page 2 of 47 Judge (Sr. Division), Kamakshyanagar answered the reference by judgment dated 02.05.2014. 2. The land acquisition proceeding was pursuant to notification dated 07.07.2010 published in the Gazette on 05.08.2011. Land of the appellants of an area Ac. 0.41 decimals, pertaining to Plot No.1916 Khata no.375/94 of ‘Sarada-I kisam’ Mouza-Kamakshyanagar, District- Dhenkanal was acquired for the Angul-Duburi-Sukinda Road, New Broad Gauge (B.G.) Rail Link Project, Dhenkanal. The Land Acquisition Officer determined the compensation amount at ₹25,00,000/- per acre i.e. ₹25,000/- per decimal. 3. Before the referral Court the awarded compensation amount ₹16,63,084/- as intimated by notice U/s. 12 (2) of the L.A. Act was disputed by the appellants stating that their land should be valued at a higher rate. The appellants had objected before the L.A. Collector by written objection and they received with protest compensation amount. Their written objection was forwarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer leading to adjudication by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division). The LAA No. 35 of 2014 Page 3 of 47 referral Court enhanced the compensation amount, to be determined at Rs.56,41,905/- (Rupees fifty six lakh forty one thousand nine hundred five) per acre. The appellants still
Legal Reasoning
dissatisfied have approached this Court in the present appeal. 4. It is noticed by this Court that the proceeding u/s.18 of the Act before the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) has some peculiar features as far as impletion of parties. Certified copy of the judgment has been enclosed and is also available in the lower court records which indicates that the Special LAO, Angul-Duburi-Sukinda Road, New B.G. Rail Link Project forwarded the claim of appellants and was the only opposite party to answer the claim of enhancement of compensation amount. What is more peculiar is that the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) has neither framed any issue nor answered as to who were the Project Proponents, who had deposited/paid the amount of compensation as determined by the LA Collector in the first instance and would pay/deposit the enhanced amount as directed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division). The learned Court has not at all gone to the issue how the enhanced amount awarded will be satisfied i.e. LAA No. 35 of 2014 Page 4 of 47 whether opp. Party in the lis is to pay the amount or any one else will pay it. 5. The issues framed by the learned court below is reflected in paragraph-5 of the judgment which is reproduced below : “5. The point that needs for determination is : Whether the petitioners are entitled to have an amount of higher compensation than the amount settled by the O.P. ?” 6. The “order” of the learned Civil Judge(Sr. Division) indicates the following : “The reference U/s.18 of L.A. Act is answered as follows:- land The market price of acquired is determined at Rs.56,41,905/- (fifty six lacs forty one thousand nine hundred and five) per acre, as on the date of notification. The petitioners are entitled to get compensation at such higher rate for the acquired land. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Angul- Duburi-Sukinda Road New B.G. Rail Link Project, Dhenkanal is directed to re-assess the compensation at such higher rate for the acquired land measuring Ac.0.55 dec bearing plot no. 1893 under khata no.375/81 and to pay the same to the petitioners after deducting the amount which has already been paid to him. The petitioners are also entitled to all the enhanced compensation as admissible under the L.A. Act. The petitioners are also at liberty to put-forth their grievance for proper rehabilitation and resettlement before the competent authority as per the provisions statutory benefits such on LAA No. 35 of 2014 Page 5 of 47 of Orissa Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy, 2006.” 7. By the above order the amount of compensation awarded in the L.A. proceeding, ₹16,63,084/- (Rupees Sixteen lakh sixty three thousand eighty four only) was enhanced by the learned court to be calculated at ₹56,41,905/-(Rupees fifty six lakh forty-one thousand nine hundred five) per acre as on the date of notification. The Special LAO, Angul-Duburi-Sukinda Road, New B.G. Rail link Project was directed to re-assess and pay the same to the petitioners after deducting the amount which has already been paid to him. 8. Somehow, the judgment in its ordering portion or any of its paragraphs does not refer to who will deposit the enhanced amount before the LAO Collector. The list of witnesses examined on behalf of petitioners indicates that no witness was examined on behalf of opposite parties Special LAO nor any written statement was filed on behalf of the Special LAO. Working sheet of the acquired land was produced on behalf of Opp. Paty-L.A. Collector marked as Ext.A. Apparently, contest to the enhanced amount claimed or any contest to the basis of LAA No. 35 of 2014 Page 6 of 47 determination of enhanced amount has not been disclosed in the judgment. 9. Being dissatisfied by the determination of the compensation amount ₹56,41,905/- per acre of land on the date of notification as held by the referral Court the appellants have challenged the same by filing the present appeal for further enhancement. By order dated 22.04.2015 payment of court fee was exempted in Misc. Case No.188 of 2014. The matter was then referred to the National Lok Adalat held by this Court. By order dated 09.12.2017 it is observed by the learned Judge, Lok Adalat that “It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that in view of the dispute involved in this case, this matter cannot be settle in the Lok Adalat.” 10. As indicated above Misc. Case No.141 of 2016 has been filed by the Company for intervention. The said I.A. has been contested to the hilt as the matter is kept pending before this Court. The I.A. is contested by the appellant without any further progress in the adjudication of appeal. The respondent, Special LAO represented in the present appeal through the LAA No. 35 of 2014 Page 7 of 47 learned AGA also objects the intervention application. On consent of the parties the matter is taken up for hearing and disposal. The Misc. Case seeking inervention is also taken up and disposed of by the order recorded below along with the judgment. Misc. Case No.141 of 2016 11. Petitioner Angul-Sukinda Railway Company has filed the application under sub-section (2) of Section 50 of the LA Act, 1894 read with Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for intervention. It is contended that no notice was issued either to the East Coast Railway (Project Proponent) on whose behalf the land was acquired or to the intending-intervenor Company by entering into a concession agreement with the Govt. of India, Ministry of Railways, has undertaken the liability to pay the compensation amount in respect of the land acquired for the project. Though the award has not been challenged separately in any connected land acquisition appeal but it is contended in the I.A. that in absence of statutory notice to East Coast Railway or the LAA No. 35 of 2014 Page 8 of 47 intervenor-Company the award has to be held as a nullity as it suffers from gross violation of the principle of natural justice, i.e. the affected party must be heard by the adjudicating Court. 12. In the background facts as noted above and in view of the procedure adopted in the proceedings before the Special LAO as well as in the reference U/s.18 that was decided by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kamakshyanagar, the contention that neither the East Coast Railway nor the Company were made parties or were heard remains unrebutted. Further, no material is brought to the notice of this Court by appellants or the respondent-opposite party LAO to show that East Coast Railway and the Company were made parties or were heard in he proceeding u/s.18 of the Act before the Court below. It is also neither pleaded nor demonstrated before this Court if impletion of East Coast Railway and/or the intending intervenor Company in the proceeding u/s. 18 would have prejudiced the appellants or the O.P.-Spl. Land LAA No. 35 of 2014 Page 9 of 47 Acquisition Officer in any manner. The Special Land Acquisition Officer opposing the intervention by the intervener company is rather baffling as the Special LAO is not an affected party who would pay the compensation if it is enhanced. 13. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants Mr. Panda was heard at length. There is serious opposition on behalf of the appellants to the intervention application but on the face of the records it is fairly conceded that neither the East Coast Railway nor the intervenor-Company were made parties or heard before the referral Court. Obviously there is no reference to any written statement or any other response from Railways or the intending intervenor in the LA case before the referral Court. 14. Order dated 21.04.2025 was passed earlier after hearing the learned counsel for appellants. Said order is reproduced herein : Misc. Case No.141 of 2016 “1. The matter has been listed for orders. LAA No. 35 of 2014 Page 10 of 47 I.A. has been filed for intervention by the intending intervener-petitioner stating at Paragraphs- 2 and 3 the following. “2. That it transpires from the impugned Award that no notice was issued to either the East Coast Railways, on whose behalf the land was acquired or the Intervener-Company who has undertaken the liability to pay the compensation amount in respect of the land acquired for the project, by virtue of an agreement or MoU with the Ministry of Railways. It is submitted that in absence of the statutory notice as aforesaid, the Award has always been held as a nullity. 3. That due to want of notice, the Intervenor- Company did not have any opportunity to adduce evidence before the compensation amount has been enhanced by the Court at the instance of the appellants alone. There has been a clear-cut violation of the principles of natural justice. Intervener- Company is likely to be saddled with the liability to pay the compensation amount at a higher rate without an opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the impugned Award cannot be allowed to stand.” the Court and that 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants-opposite parties have filed objection to the petition for intervention. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants on being asked whether the appellants have stated in the objection that the intending intervener is neither a necessary nor a proper party for adjudication of the matter, submits that in absence of his learned senior the matter may be adjourned. 4. Perusal of the objection filed by the land oustee- appellants does not show any response to the specific LAA No. 35 of 2014 Page 11 of 47 averments made in paragraphs-2 and 3 of the petition as indicated above. 5. As prayed for, list on 05.05.2025. Liberty to mention for listing before the assigned Bench. LAA No.35 of 2014 6. List on 05.05.2025.” 15. Learned counsel Mr. Niranjan Panda appearing on behalf of appellants in response to the above order dated 21.4.2025 makes his submissions : In response to observations made in paragraphs 3 & 4 of the order he submits that the objection dated 30th September, 2022 filed by the appellants through the appellant no.3 paragraph-2 is the answer to the issues raised in paragraphs 3 and 4. Paragraphs-2 and10 of the objection are relied upon and are quoted herein : “2. That the Misc. Case is not tenable in the eyes of law and fact as the intervener is neither a necessary nor a proper party. The land in question was acquired for East Coast Railway on requisition for public purpose u/section-4(1) of L.A. Act, 1894. The land in question was never acquired for Company- ASR Ltd for which the Intervener never appeared in below. 10. That the law is well settled that only the beneficiary/person interested for whose purpose the LAA No. 35 of 2014 Page 12 of 47 land is required may be heard under Section 50(2) of L.A. Act if the beneficiary so likes. In the present case at the time of reference, the copy of reference application has been forwarded to the East Coast Railway as is available in the case record. But the petitioner is in no way concerned in the matter in the garb of agreement with Railway Department for Execution of the project work under PPP mode.” 16. Having gone through the paragraphs 2 & 11 of the objection, it was pointed out to the learned counsel that the appellants admit that the acquisition was as per requisition of the Ministry of Railways who have entered into concession agreement with the intending-intervener company. Learned counsel does not dispute that the East Coast Railway has not been arrayed as party in the petition. The authority i.e. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Angul-Duburi-Sukinda Road, New B.G. Rail Link Project has been made the only opposite party who was neither authorized in his official capacity nor he could have represented East Coast Railway/Ministry of Railway Union of India/Company. 17. It is noticed that the judgment in the opening paragraph refers to the Special LAO referring the matter u/s. 18 as indicated herein : LAA No. 35 of 2014 Page 13 of 47 “This is a reference U/s.18 of the Land Acquisition Act made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Angul-Duburi-Sukinda Road New B.G. Rail Link Project, Dhenkanal for determination of the actual market price of the acquired land.” Further, it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the decretal dues have been paid by the East Coast Railway though they are not parties in the reference i.e. LA Misc. Case No. 03 of 2014. The affidavit of the appellants dated 30.09.2022 (objection to the intervention) does not state whether any amount was deposited/paid towards enhancement. The affidavit does not disclose the reasons for an authority who is not a party to a reference u/s. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act would satisfy the decree. No indication is there when the amount if any was deposited. The direction of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) was to the Special Land Acquisition Officer to reassess the compensation, as such there is no direction to any other entity to deposit and/or for payment of such compensation so that the Special Land Acquisition Officer can release the enhanced amount in favour of the appellants. LAA No. 35 of 2014 Page 14 of 47 18. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that though not made party the referral court issued notice to the East Coast Railway. On being asked by which order the said notice was issued by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kamakshyanagar in L.A. Misc. Case No.03 of 2014, the learned counsel submits that the Special LAO while referring the matter under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act by letter intimated the East Coast Railway. Such submission is also contrary to the materials on record i.e. the record of the lower Court (LCR). The judgment as well as the reference on the face of it does not indicate that the requisitioning authority-East Coast Railway was ever made a party much less noticed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kamakhyanagar as is being suggested by the learned counsel for the Appellants. 19. Assuming that the opposite party in the L.A. case, Spl. LAO issued letter to another authority which is not made party, proposition that such letter has to be treated as notice issued by the court below is beyond scope of law. When the Special LAO himself was the opposite party in the adjudication LAA No. 35 of 2014 Page 15 of 47 he could not have issued letter to another authority to be treated as notice to appear before the Court. The LAO was not competent in his official capacity to place before the referral Court the version of the Railways or the Company. 20. Relying on the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in Satish Kumar Gupta and others v. State of Haryana and others: (2017) 4 SCC 760 and Gregory Patrao v. Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd.: (2022) 10 SCC 461, it is submitted by the learned counsel, Mr. Panda for the appellants that the intending intervenor is neither necessary nor proper party to be impleaded before the LA referral court and he has no locus standi in view of the notification dated 07.07.2010 issued under S.4(1) of the LA Act, annexed to the objection marked as Annexure-1/1. It is further submitted that Ministry of Railways is not a necessary party. Such submission of the learned counsel is on the face of the fact that the requisitioning authority is Union of India through Ministry of Railways as per the orders of the LAA No. 35 of 2014 Page 16 of 47 Excellency the President of India under Article 256(1) of the Constitution of India. 21. Mr. Swain, learned Additional Government Advocate referring to the judgment in Satish Kumar Gupta (supra) and Gregory Patrao (supra) submits that in view of the MoU having been subsequently executed between the Ministry of Railways and the Special Purpose Vehicle Angul-Sukinda Railways Company Limited (ASRL Ltd.), they are not necessary or proper parties in the proceeding before the LAO or the referral Court U/s.18 of the LA Act. But the learned AGA again submits that the East Coast Railway, the Project Proponent was not made a party or heard in any manner in the reference. He submits that if the matter is restored back to the referral Court, East Coast Railway should be made a party and heard. 22. Learned Senior Counsel for the intending intervenors Mr. S.K. Dash appearing along with Mr. P. Dash, learned counsel, to substantiate his arguments relies on the decision rendered by the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in U.P. Awas Evam Vikash Parishad v. Gyan Devi: AIR 1995 SC LAA No. 35 of 2014 Page 17 of 47 724: (1995) 2 SCC 326 particularly paragraphs 48 to 56 of SCC where the Supreme Court has given its conclusions. It is submitted that the facts and the issue involved in Gregory Patrao (supra) and Satish Kumar Sharma (supra) are different and distinguishable as far as their applicability to the present case is concerned. In those cases the subsequent purchaser/beneficiary of the land acquisition wanted to be parties in the LA proceeding or the reference before the Civil Court. Answering that question it was held in Satish Kumar Sharma (supra) and in Gregory Patrao (supra) that post acquisition beneficiaries are not necessary or required to be made party in the LA proceeding or the reference. 23. The learned Senior Counsel relies on the decision of this Court rendered by a coordinate Bench in Pitambar Sahoo v. Angul-Sukinda Railway Limited : 2016(II) ILR-CUTT 212 : 2016(II) OLR 27 (Manupatra print). Referring to the said decision it is submitted that after the authoritative determination by this Court in Pitambar Sahoo(supra) it is no more res integra that Angul-Sukinda Railway Company Limited, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act is LAA No. 35 of 2014 Page 18 of 47 a person interested as defined U/s.3(b) of the Act and appeal/petition for intervention filed by the said Company U/s.54 of the Act or petition U/s. 50(2) of the Act read with Order I Rule 10 of the CPC is maintainable. Learned Senior Counsel relies on paragraphs-11 and 12 of Pitamber Sahoo (supra), which are quoted herein: “11. From a conjoint reading of the aforesaid terms and conditions of the agreement it is manifest that the compensation for land acquisition has to be paid by the opposite party. Neither the Ministry of Railways nor the East Coast Railways for whose benefit the land has been acquired has shouldered any liability for the same. In view of the above, the submission of Mr. Panda to the effect that the opposite party was only a lessee under the lease agreement and has no say in the matter of determination of the compensation, cannot be lease agreement was executed accepted. The between the parties to work out the terms and conditions of the Concession Agreement. Thus, the opposite party has a right more than that of a lessee or a contractor as alleged by Mr. Panda. In view of te above, it necessitates the Court to have a close reading of the case of P.H. Harijan (supra). In the said case, the land was acquired under the poriviions of KIAD Act. The land was acquired by the State Government at the instance of KIADB under Section 28(1) of the Act, 1966. The said provision is pari materia to Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act. Section 30 of the said Act provides that the provision of L.A. Act shall mutatis mutandis apply in respect of holding enquiry and to pass award LAA No. 35 of 2014 Page 19 of 47 determining the compensation for acquisition of land by the Deputy Commissioner. In paragraph-33 of the P.H. Harijan (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “33….. In view of the above statutory provisions of the KIAD Act, the provisions of Sections 11, 18 and 30 of the LA Act are applicable for the purpose of determination of just and reasonable compensation of the acquired land payable to the landowners either by the Deputy Commissioner or Reference Court.” 12. … … Thus, the status of the opposite party in the instant case cannot be equated with that of the lessee (M/s. Rajshree Cement) as the opposite party is under obligation liable to raise funds, execute the project work, pay the compensation to the land owners and to execute all other things as agreed upon by it in the Concession Agreement…” [Underlined to supply emphasis] 24. Having heard in detail the learned counsel and in view of the above discussions, applying the law laid down by the Supreme Court and this High Court as noted above, the
Decision
petition seeking leave to intervene is allowed and disposed of. Leave granted. The petitioners shall be heard in the appeal. LAA No. 35 of 2014. 25. The LAA has been kept pending for the last 11 years. After issuance of notice, application for intervention was filed in the LAA No. 35 of 2014 Page 20 of 47 year 2016, which has been allowed by the above order. The intervention application was contested all through without delving into the merits of the appeal. 26. Heard learned counsel Mr. Niranjan Panda for the appellants, learned Additional Government Advocate Mr. Swain for the respondents and Mr. Dash, learned Senior Counsel for the intervenors. The learned counsel reiterate their respective submissions as noted above. 27. Learned AGA further submits that the present respondent i.e. Special LAO has limited role. As the Land Acquisition Act provides he is an authority under the statute which undertakes the process of acquisition, at the most he can facilitate deposit and disbursal of such compensation as determined under the statute and also any amount awarded by the referral court. The compensation/enhanced amount has to be deposited by the project proponent/beneficiary with the LA authority to be disbursed to the appellants-claimants. 28. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the intervenor submits that as far as the prayer for enhancement is LAA No. 35 of 2014 Page 21 of 47 concerned the order passed by the referral Court shows that the contentions of the project proponent-Railway or the Special Purpose Vehicle which entered into MoU/concession agreement with Ministry of Railways were not considered as they were not made parties. After the pronouncement in Pitambar Sahoo (supra) the SPV is a person interested under Section 3(b) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The referral court has to hear the railway and/or the SPV for arriving at a decision whether to enhance the award. 29. In U.P. Awas Evam Vikash Parishad v. Gyan Devi:
Decision
order remanding the matter for adjudication upon participation of all the parties shall be treated in any manner to be expression of any opinion on the merits of the respective claims and contentions of the parties. LAA No. 35 of 2014 Page 46 of 47 45. The appeal is disposed of accordingly with the aforesaid directions. In the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs. (M.S. Sahoo) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 5th May, 2025/dutta Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AJIT KUMAR DUTTA Reason: Authentication Location: ohc Date: 22-May-2025 20:42:05 LAA No. 35 of 2014 Page 47 of 47