The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK L.A.A. No.21 of 2022 Land Acquisition Zone Officer, Zone-III, Rengali Right Canal System, Dhenkanal ....... Appellant -Versus- Santosh Kumar Rath ....... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. T. Pattnaik, Additional Standing Counsel For Respondent : Mr. L. Mishra, Advocate ---------------------------- P R E S E N T: MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing: 05.12.2023 Date of Judgment: 19.12.2023 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S.K. Mishra, J. This Appeal has been preferred by the Appellant- Land Acquisition Zone Officer (Opposite Party before the Court below), challenging the Judgment dated 24.12.2020 passed by the Presiding Officer, LAR & R Authority (ND), Sambalpur, in Land Acquisition Case No.02 of 2019/55 of 2018, vide which instead of Rs.13,20,000/- per acre, as had been awarded by the Zone Officer/L.A. Collector, Zone-III, R.R.C.S., Dhenkanal, the Court below enhanced the compensation amount to Rs.49,50,000/- per acre for Sarada- II & III kisam of land and Rs.13,20,000/- per acre for Taila-II kisam of land. In addition thereto, it was also ordered that the Petitioner (present Respondent) is entitled to get cost of trees so also solatium @ 100% on the compensation amount and the Additional Market Value on the cost of land @ 12% per year for two years and the benefit , if any, applying the multiplying factor. 2.
Legal Reasoning
The brief background facts, which lead to filing of the present Appeal, are that various plots of the present Respondent, total measuring an area of Ac.2.25 decimals pertaining to Hal Settlement Khata No.131 of Mouza- Mahisapat, PS: Dhenkanal Sadar of District: Dhenkanal were acquired by the State for the purpose of Darpani Branch Canal of Rengali Right Canal System, Dhenkanal. For such acquisition, Notification under Section 11(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, shortly L.A.A. No.21 of 2022 Page 2 of 18 hereinafter, ‘the Act, 2013’, was published on 19.02.2016 by the Department of Revenue and Disaster Management, Government of Odisha. The said notification was published in the official Gazette on 17.03.2016 vide declaration No.481/R&DM dated 06.01.2017. Pursuant to the same, an award dated 30.11.2017 to the tune of Rs.65,44,955/- was passed in favour of the present Respondent (Petitioner before the Court below). According to the Respondent, the awarded amount is not in accordance with the market value of the land. The said land had a good potential value because of its location within the Dhenkanal municipal area. That apart, Industries, Government Offices, New Bus Stand, NCC Office, Hotel, Lodge, Market and other private institutions are situated nearby the acquired land. Also present Respondent took a stand before the Court below that other adjacent land owners have been awarded Rs.49,50,000/- per acre whereas, the Respondent has been awarded with Rs.13,20,000/- per acre, which is very low and not in accordance with law. That apart, it was the case of the Respondent before the Court below that the Petitioner (present Respondent) invested huge sum amounting to Rs.50,00,000/- for developing the said L.A.A. No.21 of 2022 Page 3 of 18 land, which was not taken into consideration by the land Acquisition Officer, while passing the award. Further stand of the Respondent before the Court below was that market value of the acquired land at the time of acquisition was more than rupees one Crore per acre. In spite of high potential value, paltry amount of compensation was awarded in favour of the Respondent, who is the original claimant, for which he moved before the concerned Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) for enhancement of the compensation, which resulted in the reference made under Section 64 of the Act, 2013. The matter being so referred, the Court below, after recording the evidences of the parties and taking into consideration the argument of the learned Counsel for the parties, enhanced the compensation amount to Rs.49,50,000/- per acre for Sarada- II & III kisam of land and Rs.13,20,000/- per acre for Taila-II kisam of land, apart from ordering to pay other dues payable in accordance with law, as has been detailed above. 3.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. T. Pattanaik, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. L. Mishra, learned Counsel for the Respondent. L.A.A. No.21 of 2022 Page 4 of 18 4. Though various grounds have been urged in the Memorandum of Appeal, learned Counsel for the State- Appellant submitted, the impugned Judgment is perverse as the Court below failed to examine the validity of the award determined by the Land Acquisition Zone Officer within the parameters and guidelines stipulated under Section-26 as well as Section-69 of the Act, 2013. That apart, the Court below has committed serious lapses by misinterpreting the provisions of Section 26(1) of the Act, 2013. Mr. Pattnaik further submitted, while assessing the market value of Sarada-II & III so also Taila-II kisam of land, the District Sub- Registrar, Dhenkanal, supplied sale transactions executed during the period of preceding three years so also current Bench Mark Valuation. However, only Bench Mark Valuation was taken into consideration for market value of Sarada-II & III kisam of land @ Rs.49,50,000/- per acre and Taila-II kisam of land @ 13,20,000/- per acre. Hence, the impugned Judgment suffers from material irregularities, perverse and is liable to be set aside. 5. Mr. Pattanaik drawing attention of this Court to Ext.G submitted that though the said document well demonstrates L.A.A. No.21 of 2022 Page 5 of 18 that the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Rengali Right Canal System, Dhenkanal so also Zone Officer, Zone-III, R.R.C.S., Dhenkanal, submitted a rate proposal for awarding compensation of market value of categories of land coming under acquisition in Village-Mahisapat, PS: Dhenkanal Sadar in the District of Dhenkanal, proposed to be acquired for Rengali Right Canal System, Dhenkanal , the Court below , without taking into all the contents of the said proposal, illegally and arbitrarily enhanced the compensation amount to Rs.49,50,000/- per acre for Sarada-II & III kisam of land so also @ Rs.13,20,000/- per acre for Taila-II kisam of land and hence, the said judgment deserves interference by this Court. 6. In response to the said argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the State, Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel for the Respondent, drawing attention of this court to the findings of the Court below so also documents marked as exhibits from the side of the sole Respondent (Petitioner before the Court below) submitted, the acquired land of his client had good potential value. Considering its nature, character, situation / location and site so also in view of the admitted facts that the acquired land is within the municipal L.A.A. No.21 of 2022 Page 6 of 18 area of Dhenkanal Municipality and number of public and private institutions, industries, Government Offices, Bus Sand, N.C.C. Office, Hotel Dhabas, Lodge and Market are situated near the acquired land, the Court below has righty enhanced the compensation amount. That apart, though the value of other adjacent lands were less than that of the present acquired land, the said land owners were awarded Rs.49,50,000/- per acre. The Land Acquisition Officer sans any proper probe at the spot and without due enquiry, by not following the rubric and norms of laws of the Act, 2013, illegally awarded compensation @ Rs.13,20,000/- per acre for the lands of the Respondent acquired by the State. Mr. Mishra further submitted, though the Respondent claimed before the Court below that the cost of the land acquired by the State should be rupees one crores per acre and the stand of the Respondent as to investing huge money for developing the said plots , the same were not taken into consideration by the Court below. Rather, relying on documents marked as Ext-C from the side of the State-Appellant so also Ext-3 from the side of the Respondent (Petitioner before the Court below), the market value of the said plots were enhanced to L.A.A. No.21 of 2022 Page 7 of 18 Rs.49,50,000/- per acre for Sarada-II & III kisam of land and Rs.13,20,000/- per acre for Taila-II kisam of land . Mr. Mishra submitted, there being no illegality and perversity in the impugned judgment, the Appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. Mr. Mishra also submitted, the Respondent, on getting information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, came to know that before preferring this Appeal, the Appellant had sought for opinion from the Law Department, which opined on 23.06.2021 not to prefer an Appeal. Despite such opinion and advise, this Appeal has been preferred just to harass and humiliate his client (Present Respondent), who is around 83 years old and is languishing because of his old age and is being debarred to get his legitimate dues, as has been awarded by the Court below. 8. In view of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, it would be apt to reproduce the relevant portions of the judgment which is under challenge in the present Appeal. “11. Coming to the case in hand, on perusal of the contents of Ext.G i.e. rate of proposal for fixation of market value of different kisam of land and assessment report for the acquired lands in Village- Mahisapat, it is found that the Opposite Party to fix the market value of different kisam of land has not considered any of the sale transactions L.A.A. No.21 of 2022 Page 8 of 18 preceding to the date of notification U/s 11 of the Act, rather solely relied on the plot wise bench mark valuation made by the District Sub- Registrar, Dhenkanal. It has been opined in Ext.G that " it is too difficult and complicate to fix a rate for a particular kisam of land for which it is better to fix the market value as per bench mark valuation plot wise to detect every plot easily for calculation of compensation". Though there was 24 nos. of registered sale deeds transacted for Sarad-II kisam of land but the Opposite Party did not relay the same with a opinion that the sale price is more high than that of the bench mark valuation of the concerned plots and that perhaps the people are purchasing the lands for future business or residential purpose due to the proposed power project of NTPC, Gajamara. there is progress/development 12. 1t is the general principle that if there is a proposal for establishment of industry in a particular area or towards urbanization the sale price of the land in the said area would increase. So the findings of the Opposite Party that as there was power project of NTPC people are purchasing the land in high rate and for that reason the sale deeds have not been taken into consideration for determination of market value of the acquired land is not acceptable as the same is against the guidelines envisaged U/s 26 of the Act which clearly provides that to ascertain the market value of the land registered sell deeds and agreement to sell the locality where the land is situated may be taken into consideration. In the present case the fixation of market value by the Opposite Party in Ext.G is totally deviate from the provision of Section 26 of the Act. Therefore the rate chart prepared by the bench mark valuation committee in Ext.G basing on the plot wise bench mark valuation report of District Sub-Registrar, Dhenkanal is appears to be arbitrary and inadequate because the said committee suo-moto has categorized the kisam of the land under Class-I(A), Class-I(C), class-II(A) and Class- II(C), all other land(B) and Ghara Bari(B) ignoring the kisam of the land mentioned in the ROR. As per Ext.1 and E i.e. ROR of Khata No. 131 and Form No.K respectively Plot Nos. 1805, 1808 and 1812/2462 are L.A.A. No.21 of 2022 Page 9 of 18 under kisam Sarad-III, Plot No.1807 is under kisam Sarad-Il and Plot No 1803/2463 is under Kisam Taila- II. Section 12(3) of the Odisha Special Survey and Settlement Act, 2012 & Rule 16(3) of the Odisha Special Survey and Settlement Rules, 2012 provides that "every entry in a record of rights so published shall be evidence of the matter referred to in such entry and shall be presumed to be correct unless it is proved by evidence to be incorrect." In the present case there is no evidence from the side of the Opposite Party if the status/kisam of the lands of the Petitioner reflected in the final published ROR (Ext.1) has been challenged or the concerned Authority. No valid changed by reasons has also been assigned by the committee in the plot wise valuation report as to why and how the lands of the Petitioner comes under the category of Class-I(C) and Class-II(C). As such the categorization of the lands of the Petitioner by the Opposite Party is not acceptable. 13. OPW-1 in his cross examination at Para- 16 has admitted that his department has not prepared any valuation chart on verification of spot, except the valuation report made by the District Sub-Registrar, Dhenkanal. So it is clear from the evidence of OPW-1 that the Opposite Party has not physically verified the Petitioner's land which has been acquired to access the market price. Therefore the fixation of market price of the acquired lands under Ext.G is not acceptable. What it revels from Ext.G that the Zone Officer, Zone-Ill, RRCS, Dhenkanal on dtd.18.08.2016 submitted the proposed rate chart fixing the rate for different categories of land to the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Rengali Right Canal System, Dhenkanal for approval. However the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Rengali Right Canal System, Dhenkanal has fixed the market value of land in respect of Village-Mahisapat on dtd.20 08.2016 under Ext.C. He has fixed the market value of the land under the following rates i.e. Sarad-I, II and III (Class-I-A, II-A) @ Rs.49,50,000/- per acre and Taila-I and II (Class- II-C) @ Rs.13,20,000/- per acre etc. 14. The Petitioner claiming enhancement of the awarded amount has relied upon Ext.3 i.e. certified copy of registered Sale Deed vide No.10501300224 of 2013. On perusal of the same it is found that the sale L.A.A. No.21 of 2022 Page 10 of 18 fixed by consideration for total area measuring Ac. 1.00 of land under kisam Sarad-1 and II and Patit of Hal Khata No. 43 of Mouza-Mahisapat was Rs.40,00,000/-per acre. This is the sale consideration in the year 2013. In the present case notification U/s 11 of the Act was published in official gazette on dtd.17.03.2016. So from the year 2013 to 2016 the market value of the land in Mahisapat Mouza might have been increased. As stated above, in Ext.C the market value of the land has been fixed under the following rates i.e. Sarad-I, II and III (Class-I-A, II-A) @ Rs.49,50,000/- per acre and Taila-I and II (Class-Il-C) @ Rs.13,20,000/- per acre etc. has the Special Land already been Acquisition Officer, Rengali Right Canal System, Dhenkanal. The Petitioner except Ext.3 has not put forth any documentary evidence rebutting the contents of Ext.C. Further there is also no clinching evidence that the Petitioner invested more than Rs.50,00,000/- for development of his lands prior to the acquisition. Similarly except Ext.D, there is not a single sheet of paper to ascertain if there were more old trees on the lands of the Petitioner. Therefore the pleading of the Petitioner that the prevalent market value of his land which has already been acquired is of more than Rs.1,00,00,000/- per acre cannot be accepted. Rather considering the sale price in Ext.3 for Sarad kisam of land and the fixed market price in Ext.C of different kisam of land I am of the considered view that the market price fixed in Ext.C for Sarad and Taila kisam of land is appears to be reasonable and the same is accepted. Fact of the matter is that the Petitioner has been awarded less amount than that of the market price fixed in Ext.C. It reveals from the Ext.B and E that in total Rs.65,44,955/- has been awarded to the Petitioner towards compensation for the acquired land ignoring the rate fixed in Ext.C. It is the specific pleading of the Petitioner that the adjacent plot owners of his land have been awarded more than that of compensation awarded to him. This fact is also is found supposed fromExt.2 and from the evidence of OPW-1 who in his cross-examination at para-19 has admitted that the blue marked portion of the concerned plot in Ext.2 has been assessed for Rs.49,50,000/- per acre for the same project. On perusal of Ext.2 and 4 it is found that one L.A.A. No.21 of 2022 Page 11 of 18 acquired plot i.e. Plot No.1809 which is adjacent to Plot No.1808 and 1812/2462 has adequately, even more than the price at which he/she makes voluntary transaction(s). What I impressed upon to say is that while computing compensation, the assessing officer should have look for the documents like Ext.3 and C for fixation of compensation. Had it been done so, the Petitioner might have not expressed his anguish over the award. (Emphasis supplied) 9. Apart from the said findings, the Court below , relying on the judgment of this Court reported in 2011 (1) OLR 544 (Bidhyadhar Mahalik Vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Kalahandi) , observed that the State is expected to be more benevolent towards the loser of the land by compensating him/her value, the additional market value on cost of land @ 12% per year for two years, with further observation that the amount of compensation already received by the Petitioner (Respondent before the Court below) shall be deducted from the total amount payable to him. Accordingly, direction was given to the present Appellant to pay the differential amount within four months from the date of the said order with usual interest as provided under Section 80 of the Act, 2013, till the payment is made. 10. Since one of the grounds to assail the impugned judgment/award is alleged deviation of the provision under L.A.A. No.21 of 2022 Page 12 of 18 Section 26 of the Act, 2013, it is apt to extract below Section 26 of the Act, 2013 for ready reference. “26. Determination of market value of land by the Collector.–(1) The Collector shall adopt following criteria in assessing and determining the market value of the land, namely:— (a) the market value, if any, specified in the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899) for the registration of sale deeds or agreements to sell, as the case may be, in the area, where the land is situated; or (b) the average sale price for similar type of land situated in the nearest village or nearest vicinity area; or (c) consented amount of compensation as agreed upon under sub-section (2) of section 2 in case of acquisition of lands for private companies or for public private partnership projects, whichever is higher: Provided that the date for determination of market value shall be the date on which the notification has been issued under section 11. Explanation 1.-The average sale price referred to in clause (b) shall be determined taking into account the sale deeds or the agreements to sell registered for similar type of area in the near village or near vicinity area during immediately preceding three years of the year in which such acquisition of land is proposed to be made. Explanation 2.-For determining the average sale price referred to in Explanation 1, one-half of the total number of sale deeds or the agreements to sell in which the highest sale price has been mentioned shall be taken into account. Explanation 3.-While determining the market value under this section and the average sale price referred to in Explanation 1 or Explanation 2, any price paid as compensation for land acquired under the provisions of this Act on an earlier occasion in the district shall not be taken into consideration. Explanation 4.-While determining the market value under this section and the average sale price referred to in Explanation 1 or Explanation 2, any price paid, which in the opinion of the Collector is not indicative of actual L.A.A. No.21 of 2022 Page 13 of 18 prevailing market value may be discounted for the purposes of calculating market value. (2) The market value calculated as per sub- section (1) shall be multiplied by a factor to be specified in the First Schedule. (3) Where the market value under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) cannot be determined for the reason that— (a) the land is situated in such area where the transactions in land are restricted by or under any other law for the time being in force in that area; or (b) the registered sale deeds or agreements to sell as mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (1) for similar land are not available for the immediately preceding three years; or (c) the market value has not been specified under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899) by the appropriate authority, the State Government concerned shall specify the floor price or minimum price per unit area of the said land based on the price calculated in the manner specified in sub-section (1) in respect of similar types of land situated in the immediate adjoining areas: Provided that in a case where the Requiring Body offers its shares to the owners of the lands (whose lands have been acquired) as a part compensation, for acquisition of land, such shares in no case shall exceed twenty-five per cent, of the value so calculated under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) as the case may be: Provided further that the Requiring Body shall in no case compel any owner of the land (whose land has been acquired) to take its shares, the value of which is deductible in the value of the land calculated under sub- section (1): Provided also that the Collector shall, before initiation of any land acquisition proceedings in any area, take all necessary steps to revise and update the market value of the land on the basis of the prevalent market rate in that area: land or property of an educational Provided also that the appropriate Government shall ensure that the market value determined for acquisition of any institution established and administered by a religious or linguistic minority shall be such as would not restrict or abrogate the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.” (Emphasis supplied) L.A.A. No.21 of 2022 Page 14 of 18 11. Though, the learned Counsel for the State/Appellant argued before this Court that the Court below did not take into consideration the document marked as Ext.G i.e. the rate of proposal for fixation of market value of different categories of land suggested by the Special Land Acquisition Officer so also the concerned Zone Officer, it is found from the impugned Judgment that the Court below , while dealing with the said document marked as Ext.G, observed as follows. “11. XXX It has been opined in Ext.G that " it is too difficult and complicate to fix a rate for a particular kisam of land for which it is better to fix the market value as per bench mark valuation plot wise to detect every plot easily for calculation of compensation". Though there was 24 nos. of registered sale deeds transacted for Sarad-II kisam of land but the Opposite Party did not relay the same with a opinion that the sale price is more high than that of the bench mark valuation of the concerned plots and that perhaps the people are purchasing the lands for future business or residential purpose due to the proposed power project of NTPC, Gajamara. 12. XXX In the present case the fixation of market value by the Opposite Party in Ext.G is totally deviate from the provision of Section 26 of the Act. Therefore the rate chart prepared by the bench mark valuation committee in Ext.G basing on the plot wise bench mark valuation report of District Sub-Registrar, Dhenkanal is appears to be arbitrary and inadequate because the said committee suo-moto has categorized the kisam of the land under Class-I(A), Class-I(C), class- II(A) and Class-II(C), all other land(B) and Ghara Bari(B) ignoring the kisam of the land mentioned in the ROR. As per Ext.1 and E i.e. ROR of Khata No. 131 and Form No.K respectively Plot Nos. 1805, 1808 and 1812/2462 are under kisam Sarad-III, Plot No.1807 is under kisam Sarad-Il and Plot No 1803/2463 is under Kisam Taila-II. L.A.A. No.21 of 2022 Page 15 of 18 13. OPW-1 in his cross examination at Para-16 has admitted that his department has not prepared any valuation chart on verification of spot, except the valuation report made by the District Sub-Registrar, Dhenkanal. So it is clear from the evidence of OPW-1 that the Opposite Party has not physically verified the Petitioner's land which has been acquired to access the market price. Therefore the fixation of market price of the acquired lands under Ext.G is not acceptable. What it revels from Ext.G that the Zone Officer, Zone-Ill, RRCS, Dhenkanal on dtd.18.08.2016 submitted the proposed rate chart fixing the rate for different categories of land to the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Rengali Right Canal System, Dhenkanal for approval. However the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Rengali Right Canal System, Dhenkanal has fixed the market value of land in respect of Village-Mahisapat on dtd.20 08.2016 under Ext.C. He has fixed the market value of the land under the following rates i.e. Sarad-I, II and III (Class-I- A, II-A) @ Rs.49,50,000/- per acre and Taila-I and II (Class-II-C) @ Rs.13,20,000/- per acre etc.” 12. That apart, the apex Court in judgment reported in (2015) 2 SCC 262 (Major General Kapil Mehra and Others Vs. Union of India & another) and in many other cases decided the factors that would determine the market value of the land. Paragraphs-10 & 11 of the said judgment, being relevant to decide the present lis, are extracted below for ready reference. “10. First question that emerges is what would be the reasonable market value which the acquired lands are capable of fetching. While fixing the market value of the acquired land, the Land Acquisition Officer is required to keep in mind the following factors:- (i) existing geographical situation of the land; (ii) existing use of the land; (iii) already available advantages, like proximity to National or State Highway or road and/or developed area and (iv) market value of other land L.A.A. No.21 of 2022 Page 16 of 18 situated in the same locality/village/area or adjacent or very near to the acquired land. 11. The standard method of determination of the market value of any acquired land is by the valuer evaluating the land on the date of valuation publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, acting as a hypothetical purchaser willing to purchase the land in open market at the prevailing price on that day, from a seller willing to sell such land at a reasonable price. Thus, the market value is determined with reference to the open market sale of comparable land in the neighbourhood, by a willing seller to a willing buyer, on or before the date of preliminary notification, as that would give a fair indication of the market value.” 13. Similarly, in Bidhyadhar Mahalik (supra), this Court vide paragraph No.13 held/observed as follows. “13. It is no doubt true that land can be acquired by the State Government for public purpose, but at the same time it is also the duty of the State Government to see that the land losers are awarded with proper compensation, which is not only a constitutional right guaranteed to the citizen but also a human right as held by the Apex Court. Therefore, the more onerous responsibilities on the Land Acquisition Officer to determine the market value of the land and give compensation to the land affected persons. If the award is not satisfactory, the land losers have got every right to file a petition U/s. 18 of the Act to make reference to the appropriate Court for proper adjudication and consideration of the matter on the basis of the market value prevalent at the time when the land was acquired.” 14. In view of the evidence on record so also the judgments referred to, the relevant portions of which have been extracted above, this court is of the view that there is no infirmity or perversity in the impugned judgment/award requiring L.A.A. No.21 of 2022 Page 17 of 18 interference by this Court. Accordingly, the Appeal stands dismissed. 15. Since Appeal has been dismissed, the Appellant is directed to pay the enhanced awarded amount to the Respondent in terms of the Judgment dated 24.12.2020 passed in Land Acquisition Case No.02 of 2019/55 of 2018 within a period of two months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order. 16. Needless to mention here that if any amount has been paid to the present Respondent in terms of order passed by the Land Acquisition Officer Zone Officer/ L.A. Collector, Zone-III, R.R.C.S., Dhenkanal, the same shall be adjusted/deducted from the said revised compensation amount, as has been ordered by the Court below. 17. Urgent Certified copy of this order be granted on proper application as per rules. …….….…………………… S.K. MISHRA, J. Odisha High Court, Cuttack The 19th December, 2023/Prasant Signature Not Verified L.A.A. No.21 of 2022 Page 18 of 18 Digitally Signed Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR PRADHAN Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 21-Dec-2023 18:34:06