The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK LAA No.44 of 2015 Belal Naik & Ors. ….... Appellants -Versus- Sub-Collector-cum- Special Land Acquisition Officer & ors. ....... Respondents Advocate for the parties For Appellants : Mr. B. Sahoo Advocate For Respondents : Mr. G.N. Sahoo Advocate ................... CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA Date of Hearing and Judgment : 16.07.2025 _____________________________________________________________ S.K. MISHRA, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred challenging the judgment dated 27.08.2015 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Sundergarh in L.A. Reference Case No.348 of 2013. 2. The brief facts of the case, which lead to file this appeal are that the Government of Orissa acquired land in respect of Hal Khata No.142 of Mouza Rupidihi, measuring an area of Ac.9.390 Dec. of land for establishment of the Ultra Mega Power Project at Bedhabahal in the district of Sundargarh. Accordingly the Land Acquisition Collector settled compensation of Rs.2,13,43,940/- in favour of the Respondents No.3 to 10 (O.P. No.3 to 10 before court below) under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, shortly, L.A. Act. When the present appellants came to know about the said awarding compensation, they filed objection before the Sub Collector-cum-Special L.A. Officer (Respondent No.1) claiming their title over the property and apportionment of the compensation amount. Since the Respondent No.1 was sitting over the matter and was going to disburse the awarded amount in favour of Respondents No.3 to 10, the present Appellants filed W.P.(C) No.24097 of 2013 before this Court, which stood disposed of on 28.11.2013 directing the Respondent No.1, Sub-Collector-cum-Special LAO, to refer the matter to the competent Civil Court. Being so directed, the Respondent No.1 referred the case under section 30 of the L.A. Act to the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sundargarh, Page 2 of 10 which was registered as Land Acquisition Reference Case No.348 of 2013. 3. The present Appellants, who were the Petitioners before the Referral Court, in their objection claimed that they were the descendants of one Subarna Dhrua, who was one of the recorded owners of the land under Hal Khata No.142 of Mouza Rupidihi and the said Subarna Dhrua never bequeathed or donated her land to any person. Accordingly, the Appellants claimed 1/3rd share over the compensation amount on the ground that they inherited the said property after the death of Subarna Dhrua. They also denied the exclusive ownership of the Respondents No.3 to 10 over the compensation amount. However, in course of argument, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants argued before the Referral Court that Subarna Dhrua died leaving behind her only daughter Sukmati. The present Appellants, being the sons and daughters of Sukmati and the descendants of Subarna Dhrua, inherited her properties after her death. 4. The Respondent No.3 to 10 (O.P. No.3 to 10 before court below) filed their joint written version denying the claims and assertions made by the Appellants stating therein Page 3 of 10 that the land under Hal Khata No.142 of Mouza Rupidihi is their ancestral property, which having not been affected with any partition by metes and bounds, stands recorded jointly in the names of Subarna Dhrua, Daitari Dhrua, Kansala Dhrua and Bilasa Naik. It was also stated that they are the
Legal Reasoning
descendants of Daitari and Kansala. Further it was contended that Indramani, the father of Op Nos.3 to 6 is the son of Daitari, whereas Op No. 7 is the husband and Op Nos.8 to 10 are the son and daughters of Bilasa Dhrua. As per the contention of the Op nos. 3 to 10, since last 50 to 60 years, they are in possession of the land under Hal khata no.142 without any disturbance from any quarter. 5. As regards the issue of Subarna through her husband Ratan, as claimed by the petitioners, It was specifically pleaded before the Referral Court that Subarna died issueless and after her death, the entire property passes to the legal heirs of Palau and Kalo. It was further contended by the Opposite Party Nos.3 to 10 that the Petitioners are no way related to Subarna. Without having any right, title, interest over the acquired land, the Petitioners, who are Page 4 of 10 strangers to their family, are falsely claiming their shares although they are not entitled to the same. 6. All the parties were permitted to lead evidence by the Referral Court. After taking into consideration the pleading so also the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gian Chand & ors. Vs. State of Haryana and evidence on record, the Referral Court gave a finding that the present Appellants (Petitioners) have failed to prove that their mother Sukmati is the daughter of Subarna Dhrua. Paragraph Nos.9 to 11 of the impugned judgment, being relevant are extracted below for ready reference:- the the Ops.3 to 10 drawing cross-examination same That apart, the learned counsel “9. for the attention of the Court to the testimony of O.P.Ws.1 & 2 have submitted that their evidence having not been shaken by during the petitioners, remains unassailed and the same is to be relied upon. He further submitted that, as required under law, the petitioners have hopelessly failed to prove the relationship between Subarna and Sukmati. In support of his such contention, he has relied upon the decision reported in AIR 1994 Orissa- 298 in the case of Sankhali Dhal (and after him), Gadadhar Dhal and others Vrs. Nilamani Dei and others. Page 5 of 10 the So the about far as is concerned, the evidence of 10. O.P.W.2 learned counsel for the Ops. 3 to 10 has contended that since his evidence in chief has not been demolished in any manner, the unchallenged part of his such evidence is to be relied upon. On going through the evidence of O.P.W.2, it is found that he has inter-Se stated relationship between the Op Nos.3 to 10 with Subarna. That besides, in para-1 of his examination in chief, he has stated that he knows Subarna, who was staying jointly with the father of Akshya namely Indra Dhurua. He has categorically deposed that Subarna died issue less and that after her death, Akshya Dhurua and his brothers did all the funeral obsequies of Subarna. He has further deposed that during the life time of Indra, he was possessing the entire land and was maintaining Subarna. With regard to the petitioners' relationship with Subarna and their place of abode, he has stated that the petitioners do not belong to their village nor they are related to the family of Indra and Tulsi. Furthermore, the as possession of the land in question, this witness denied the petitioners' possession over the same, at any point of time. Nothing substantial has been elicited from the mouth of cross- O.P.W.2 examination so as to discredit his veracity. In course of argument, the learned counsel the petitioners for contended that no reliance can be placed on the testimony of O.P.W.2, as he does not know anything about the regards during his Page 6 of 10 of Subarna. At this daughter juncture, it may be noted here that the evidence of O.P.W.2 is very much clear and consistent that Subarna died issue less and after her death, the Op Akshya and his funeral brothers did all her obsequies. This piece of evidence of O.P.W.2 remained unchallenged having not been assailed in any manner. In this context, I am fortified with the ratio of the decision reported in 2013(3) Apex Court Judgment-049 (S.C.) in the case of Gian Chand & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that:- as regards “If a party wishes to raise any doubt the correctness of the statement of a witness, the said witness must be given an Opportunity to explain his statement by drawing his attention to that part of it, which has been objected to by the other party, as being untrue. Without this, it is not possible to impeach his credibility.......” Hence, through the evidence In the case at hand, as discussed earlier, in chief tendered by the O.P.W.2 has not been assailed by the petitioners in cross- any manner, examination. placing reliance on the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court (supra), it is the petitioners proved themselves to be the legal heirs of Sukmati, but Sukmati is not the daughter of Subarna as the owner Subarna Dharua died issue less. although held that Page 7 of 10 In view 11. the aforesaid of discussions and observations in the foregoing paragraphs and keeping in view the decisions of the Hon'ble Court and Apex Court (supra), I am of the considered opinion that as required under section 50 of the Evidence Act, the petitioners have utterly failed to prove their relationship with Subarna Dharua and hence, in absence of proof of the same, they are not entitled to get any compensation amount, awarded by the L.A.O. for acquisition of the land under hal khata no.142, mouza Rupidihi. In other words, it can be said that the award passed by the L.A.O. Sundargarh for acquisition of the land under hal khata No.142 of Mouza Rupidihi in favour of the Op Nos.3 to 10 is correct and the same needs no interference by this Court. Hence, ordered.” (Emphasis Supplied) 7. During hearing, a query being made by this Court as to how such observation of the Referral Court is perverse, learned Counsel for the Appellants fails to demonstrate before this Court from the evidence on record that such an observation to be perverse deserving interference by this Court. Rather the Referral Court, apart from the oral evidence on record, relying on the survey report of the Land Acquisition Officer gave such a finding. Page 8 of 10 8. It was also observed vide the impugned judgment that though the present Appellants exhibited the legal heir certificate, which was marked as Exhibit 1 before the Referral Court, to prove that they are the legal heirs of Sukmati, being her son and daughters, but they failed to produce any document of any authority showing their relationship with Subarna Dhrua. That apart, the Court below also relied on the Yadast submitted by LAO, Sundergarh, which corroborates the stand of the Respondent Nos.3 to 10 that Subarna Dhrua was issueless. 9. As the learned Counsel for the Appellants fails to satisfy this Court as to any perversity in the impugned judgment passed by the Referral Court, there being no infirmity in the impugned judgment dated 27.08.2015, the Appeal stands dismissed. 10. At this stage, learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 to 10 submits, at the instance of the present Appellants, an interim order has been passed on 05.11.2015 in Misc. Case No.170 of 2015 to release 2/3rd share of the awarded amount in favour of his clients and retain 1/3rd of Page 9 of 10 the awarded amount, which is still lying with the Respondent No.1. 11. In view of dismissal of the appeal, the Sub- Collector-cum-Special Land Acquisition Officer, Ultra Mega Power Project, Sundergarh (Respondent. No.1) is directed to release the rest 1/3rd amount in favour of the Respondent Nos.3 to 10, including the accrued interest thereon, if any, within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. …….…………………… S.K. MISHRA, J. Orissa High Court, Cuttack. Dated, 16th July, 2025/ Banita Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BANITA PRIYADARSHINI PALEI Designation: SR. STENOGRAPHER Reason: AUTHENTICATION Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jul-2025 18:52:13 Page 10 of 10