The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 4467 of 2024 Digambara Mirdha Special Land Acquisition Officer, Talcher-Sambalpur Rail Link and another CORAM: ….. Vs. ….. Petitioner Mr. R.N. Debta, Adv. Opposite Parties Mr. S. Nayak, ASC Order No. 01.
Decision
ORDER 05.03.2024 This matter is taken up by hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. R.N. Debta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. S. Nayak, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opposite Parties. 3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 12.09.2023 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Rairakhol in CMA No. 2 of 2021. 4. Mr. R.N. Debta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that since the matter relates to land acquisition, the delay of 14 years may be condoned and, as such, direction may be given to the court below to continue with the matter. 5. Mr. S. Nayak, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opposite Parties contended that even if it is a land acquisition matter, it is not at the caprice and whims of the parties to approach the court below after 14 years. As such, the order dated 12.09.2023 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Rairakhol in CMA No. 2 of 2021 is well justified, which does not require any interference of this Court at this stage. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, this Court finds that L.A. Case No. 100 of 1993 was initiated for enhancement of the award passed by the Special Land Acquistion Officer Talcher-Sambalpur Rail Link in respect of Page 1 of 4 the acquired land under the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioner had engaged one advocate to look after his case and being a rustic villager waited for his communication. But the concerned advocate did not inform him about the development of the case. Since no step was taken on behalf of the petitioner, on 16.03.2007 the award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. After knowing the disposal of the case in L.A. Case No.160 of 1991, the petitioner enquired about the fate of his case. But he failed to make contact with his previous counsel for which he contacted another advocate and on 22.10.2021 applied for certified copy of L.A. Case No.100 of 1993 and came to know about the impugned order dated 16.03.2007. Thereafter, the petitioner filed CMA with a prayer to set aside the order dated 16.03.2007 in L.A. case No.100 of 1993, to which the opposite parties filed objection and during course of argument they submitted that the petitioner has filed the application after a lapse of about 14 years and, therefore, such delay without any valid ground could not be condoned. In order to prove his case, the petitioner has examined himself as P.W.1 and proved Ext.1 as documentary evidence. On the other hand, no evidence has been adduced from the side of the opposite parties. 7. There is no dispute that the petitioner had approached the court below after 14 years of dismissal of L.A. case. However, to support his contention, the petitioner has relied upon the decisions in the case of Jogi Sahu v. Collector, Cuttack, AIR 1991 Ori 283; Shyam Shundar Mantri v. Land Acquisition Officer, Cuttack, 1992 (II) OLR 352; Purandara Sahu v. Land Acquisition Zone Officer, Talcher Samblapur Rail Link, 2016 (II) OLR 190; Jagdish Pradhan v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Sambalpur, CMP No. 630 of 2017 and Nathpa Jhakri Project Corporation v. Shri Shibu, RFA No.324 of 2010. The tribunal taking into consideration the above judgments and being not satisfied with the justifiable reasons as to why the petitioner Page 2 of 4 has approached the court below after lapse of 14 years by not giving sufficient reasons, dismissed the application. 8. On perusal of the order itself, it is made clear that the petitioner has examined himself as P.W.1 and proved some documents as Ext.1, but that itself is not sufficient to justify for condonation of delay. 9. In Jogi Sahu (supra), this Court already held that a person whose land was being acquired is entitled to compensation. Therefore, the entitlement should not be denied except on very compelling circumstances. To deprive a person from his due entitlement on a technical plea would be a negation of rule of law. Similarly, in Shyam Shundar Mantri (supra), this Court held that order of dismissal of a case by the reference court for non-appearance of the claimant must be held to be without jurisdiction and such an order is available to be recalled in exercise of powers of the Court under Section 151 of the CPC. So far as the judgment in Purandara Sahu (supra) is concerned, it has been held that a land acquisition reference cannot be dismissed for non-prosecution. But in those cases orders have been passed while exercising powers under Section 151 of the CPC, where the Court has got power under Section 151 of the CPC to recall its own order. But, at the same time, there should be a reasonable ground to pass such order. In the present case, which has been filed for condonation of delay and the period of limitation for filing such petition, there must by sufficient reasons for condonation of such delay. But nothing has been placed on record to show that the petitioner has established a case for condonation of delay in approaching the court by giving sufficient reason for 14 years. In absence of any materials to that extent, the learned court below has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. 10. In such view of the matter, this Court does not find any error on the face of the order dated 12.09.2023 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Rairakhol in CMA No. 2 of 2021 so as cause Page 3 of 4 interference with the same. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition merits no consideration and the same is hereby dismissed. Ashok (DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE (G. SATAPATHY) JUDGE Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 06-Mar-2024 18:46:35 Page 4 of 4