The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) NO. 12986 OF 2025 Bhima Gadtia @ Gadtya …. Petitioner Mr. Prasanta Kumar Satapathy, Advocate being authorized by Mr. Akshaya Kumar Sahoo, Advocate -versus- 1. State of Odisha 2. Director (R&R) & Ex-Officio, Additional Secretary to Government 3. Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Bolangir 4. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Lower Suktel Irrigation Project, Bolangir Opposite Parties Mr. Swayambhu Mishra, A.S.C. …. CORAM:
Decision
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO ORDER 31.07.2025 Order No. 02. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Petitioner in this writ application seeks to assail order dated 15th January, 2025 (Annexure-5) passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Lower Suktel Irrigation Project, Bolangir- Opposite Party No.4 by which an application filed by the Petitioner under Section 64(1) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for brevity “the Act”) has been rejected. 3. Mr. Satapathy, learned counsel being authorized by Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the award was published on 26th February, 2023. The Petitioner received the Page 1 of 6 compensation on protest on 3rd June, 2023 and filed an application under Section 64(1) of the Act on 24th August, 2023 to refer the matter to Authority for enhancement of the compensation and other benefits. The said application was not entertained by Special Land Acquisition Officer, Lower Suktel Irrigation Project, Bolangir- Opposite Party No.4. Hence, the Petitioner filed W.P.(C) No. 27407 of 2024, which was disposed of on 18th November, 2024 (Annexure-4) with a direction to the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Lower Suktel Irrigation Project, Bolangir to take a decision on the application filed by the Petitioner under Section 64(1) of the Act. Pursuant to the said direction, the impugned order under Annexure-5 has been passed. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Satapathy, learned counsel that the Opposite Party No.4 rejected the application filed under Section 64(1) of the Act on the sole ground that it was filed beyond the period of limitation i.e. six weeks. Second Proviso to Section 64 (2) of the Act was not taken into consideration by the Opposite Party No. 4, while considering the application filed by the Petitioner under Section 64(1) of the Act. Since it is a benevolent statute, delay if any, in filing the application under Section 64(1) of the Act should have been condoned. He draws attention to the provision under Section 64 (2) of the Act, which reads as under; “Section 64 (2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken: Provided that every such application shall be if the person making made- (a) 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; Page 2 of 6 in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of (b) 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.” He therefore submits that second proviso to section 64 (2) of 5. the Act makes it clear that the Collector may entertain an application under Section 64(1) of the Act after expiry of the period provided under first proviso to Section 64(2) of the Act, but within a further period of one year, if satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within the period specified in the first proviso. 6. The Opposite Party No.4 failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by not exercising the power under second proviso to Section 64 (2) of the Act. Hence, he prays for setting aside the impugned order and to remit the matter to the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Lower Suktel Irrigation Project, Balangir- Opposite Party No.4 for fresh consideration of the application under Section 64(1) of the Act, keeping in mind the second proviso to Section 64 (2) of the Act. 7. Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel submits that no application explaining the delay in filing the petition under Section 64(1) of the Act was filed along with the application under Section 64(1) of the Act. Thus, the Special Land Acquisition Officer had no occasion to consider the condonation delay. As such, the application under Section 64(1) of the Act was considered in terms of period of limitation provided under first proviso to Page 3 of 6 Section 64(2) of the Act. He therefore submits that no fault can be attributed to the Special Land Acquisition Officer in rejecting the application under Section 64(1) of the Act. 8. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds that the award was published on 26th February, 2023. The Petitioner received the compensation on protest on 3rd June, 2023 and filed an application under Section 64(1) of the Act on 24th August, 2023 to refer the matter to Authority for enhancement of the compensation and other benefits. But, as rightly submitted by Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel, the Petitioner had not filed any application to condone the delay or extend the period in filing the application under Section 64(1) of the Act. The Petitioner, however, in the application under Section 64(1) of the Act stated that he being a poor man could not file the application in time. But, that certainly cannot be a good ground to extend the period for acceptance of the application under Section 64(1) of the Act. The Act being a benevolent statute to provide adequate compensation for land acquisition and also to provide rehabilitation and resettlement benefit together with other benefits as specified in the statute, the Special Land Acquisition Officer before taking up the application filed under Section 64(1) of the Act ought to have provided an opportunity to the Petitioner to file an application to enable him to exercise discretionary power under Second proviso to Section 64(2) of the Act. . 9. On perusal of the impugned order under Annexure-5 it is manifest that the Special Land Acquisition Officer did not at all take this material aspect into consideration while entertaining Page 4 of 6 application filed by the Petitioner under Section 64 (1) of the Act. Thus, this Court feels that the petition under Section 64(1) of the Act requires fresh consideration affording an opportunity to the Petitioner to file an affidavit/application explaining the delay in filing the application under Section 64(1) of the Act. 10. Accordingly, order dated 15th January, 2025 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Lower Suktel Irrigation Project, Balangir under Annexure-5 is set aside and the matter is remitted for fresh adjudication of the application under Section 64(1) of the Act affording an opportunity to the Petitioner to file an application/affidavit explaining the delay in filing the petition under Section 64(1) of the Act. 11. In order to avoid the further delay, the Petitioner shall appear on 11th August, 2025 along with the certified copy of this order before the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Lower Suktel Irrigation Project, Balangir to receive further instruction in the matter. Within two weeks from the date of first appearance, the Petitioner shall file an application/affidavit explaining the delay in filing the petition under Section 64(1) of the Act. In that event, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Lower Suktel Irrigation Project, Balangir- Opposite Party No.4 shall do well to consider the application for condonation of delay/extension of period for entertaining the application and if satisfactory explanation is given by the Petitioner for entertaining application filed under Section 64(1) of the Act, then, Opposite Party No.4 shall proceed to entertain such application on merit as expeditiously as possible Page 5 of 6 preferably within a period of eight weeks therefrom and communicate the result thereof to the Petitioner forthwith. 12. With the aforesaid observation and direction the writ petition is disposed of. Urgent certified copy of this order, if applied for, shall be granted in accordance with the Rules. (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge Subhalaxmi (Savitri Ratho) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHALAXMI PRIYADARSHANI SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 06-Aug-2025 11:03:59 Page 6 of 6