The High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 24-Dec-2025 14:58:25 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 15851 OF 2025 M/s Surendra Mining Industries Private Limited …. Petitioner Mr. Goutam Mishra, Senior Advocate being assisted by Mr. Jyoti Ranjan Deo, Advocate State of Odisha and others -versus- …. Opp. Parties
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Swayambhu Mishra, Additional Standing Counsel (For Opposite Party Nos.1 to 5) Mr. Sanjib Kumar Sahoo, Advocate (For IDCO) CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO Order No.
Decision
ORDER 22.12.2025 4. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Petitioner in this writ petition seeks to assail the order dated 10th October, 2019 (Annexure-7) and the accompanying revised estimate of the cost of acquisition of land issued by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Sundargarh-Opposite Party No.3. The Petitioner also assails the consequential demand letter issued by the Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation, Odisha, Bhubaneswar (IDCO) to the Petitioner-Company under Annexure-8 and 12 series. The Petitioner further prays for a direction to restrain the Opposite Parties from issuing any subsequent demand letters to the Petitioner-Company pursuant to the order under Annexure-7 and accompanying estimate. Page 1 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 24-Dec-2025 14:58:25 3. Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioner submits that for the Petitioner-Company the land in question was acquired from private land owners vide Gazette Notification dated 31st December, 2013 (Annexure-1). The Petitioner was directed by the IDCO to deposit the estimated cost, which has already been done. Letter No.10889 dated 24th May, 2018 (Annexure-3) issued by the IDCO addressed to the Petitioner makes it clear that the Petitioner has already deposited the amount to the tune of Rs. 6,24,24,198/- so demanded by the IDCO for acquisition of land. The land losers being aggrieved by the amount of compensation paid to them moved this Court vide different Writ Petitions. The said Writ Petitions were disposed of vide orders under Annexure-11 series with a direction to the Collector, Sundargarh to take a decision on the claim of the land losers. Accordingly, the Collector passed the impugned order dated 10th October, 2018 (Annexure-7). 3.1 It is further submitted by Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate that the Collector, Sundargarh had no jurisdiction to entertain an application for redetermination/enhancement of compensation. He drew attention to the provision under Sections 33 and 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for brevity, ‘the Act, 2013’). He, therefore, submits that the Collector upon receipt of the claim petition for enhancement of compensation could have referred the matter to the Authority under Section 64 of the Act, 2013. He could not have sat over the matter to re-determine/enhance the compensation and directed the Petitioner to deposit the differential amount of Rs.3,63,35,750/-. Page 2 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 24-Dec-2025 14:58:25 He, therefore, prays for setting aside the impugned order along with the consequential demands under Annexures-8 and 12 series. 4. Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel appearing for IDCO prays for an adjournment to take instruction and file counter affidavit in the matter. 6. Mr. Mishra, learned ASC submits that pursuant to the direction of this Court in different Writ Petitions under Annexure- 11 series, the Collector, Sundargarh took up the matter and passed order re-determining/enhancing the compensation and directing the Petitioner to deposit the differential amount, as stated above. As such, the Collector, Sundargarh has only acted pursuant to the direction of this Court. Hence, no fault can be attributed to the Collector for redetermination of the compensation. 7. Taking note of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the dispute involved in this Writ Petition is very limited. The only question that is required to be adjudicated is whether the Collector and District Magistrate, Sundargarh had any jurisdiction to re-determine/enhance compensation under the Act, 2013. Section 33 of the Act, 2013 reads as under:- “33. Corrections to awards by Collector.– (1) The Collector may at any time, but not later than six months from the date of award or where he has been required under the provisions of this Act to make a reference to the Authority under section 64, before the making of such reference, by order, correct any clerical or arithmetical mistakes in either of the awards or errors arising therein either on his own motion or on the application of any person interested or local authority: Provided that no correction which is likely to affect prejudicially any person shall be made unless such person has been given a reasonable opportunity of making representation in the matter. Page 3 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 24-Dec-2025 14:58:25 (2) The Collector shall give immediate notice of any correction made in the award so corrected to all the persons interested. (3) Where any excess amount is proved to have been paid to any person as a result of the correction made under sub- section (1), the excess amount so paid shall be liable to be refunded and in the case of any default or refusal to pay, the same may be recovered, as prescribed by the appropriate Government.” Further, Section 64 (1) and (2) of the Act, 2013 reads as under:- “64. Reference to Authority.– (1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Authority, as the case may be, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the person to whom it is payable, the rights of Rehabilitation and Resettlement under Chapters V and VI or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested: Provided that the Collector shall, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of application, make a reference to the appropriate Authority: Provided further that where the Collector fails to make such reference within the period so specified, the applicant may apply to the Authority, as the case may be, requesting it to direct the Collector to make the reference to it within a period of thirty days. (2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken: Provided that every such application shall be made— (a) if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the Collector’s award; (b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under section 21, or within six months from the date of the Collector’s award, whichever period shall first expire: Provided further that the Collector may entertain an application after the expiry of the said period, within a further period of one year, if he is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within the period specified in the first proviso.” On a close reading of the provisions as stated above, it is manifest that the Collector and District Magistrate, Sundargarh has no Page 4 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 24-Dec-2025 14:58:25 jurisdiction to redetermine the compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Officer under the provisions of the Act, 2013. Upon receipt of the claims of the land losers, the Collector could have ate best referred the matter to the Authority for adjudication in terms of Section 64 of the Act, 2013. The Collector, Sundargarh acting under the provisions of the Act, 2013 cannot assume jurisdiction pursuant to direction of this Court, if he is not so authorized under Law. 8. In view of the above, this Court has no hesitation to set aside the order under Annexure-7 and consequential demand notices under Annexure-8 and 12 series and it is so directed. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent directing the Collector and District Magistrate, Sundargarh to entertain the application(s) of the land losers in terms of Section 64 of the Act, 2013 giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, if so required. 10. Since the land losers are claiming higher compensation, the Collector and District Magistrate, Sundargarh shall do well to consider the claim petitions of land losers expeditiously, in accordance with law. s.s.satapathy (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge (Savitri Ratho) Judge Page 5 of 5