The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 20065 of 2025 (An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India) Pratap Chandra Bhuyan …. Petitioner -Versus- 1. State of Odisha, Department of Revenue & Disaster Management, Bhubaneswar 2. Land Acquisition Officer, Jagatsinghpur 3. Executive Engineer, Mahanadi South Division, Cuttack 4. Niranjan Bhuyan 5. Basanti Bhuyan 6. Sachilata Bhuyan Advocates appeared: …. Opposite Parties …. Proforma Opposite Parties For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Ms. Namita Pattanaik, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. Manmaya Kumar Dash, Additional Standing Counsel CORAM: MR. JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
Decision
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Heard and disposed of on : 01.08.2025 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T By the Bench: 1. Petitioner in this writ petition seeks to assail the order dated 6th February, 2023 (Annexure-2) passed by the learned WP(C) No. 20065 of 2025 Page 1 of 7 Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagatsinghpur in LA Misc. Case No.304 of 2004 in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’). 2. Ms. Pattanaik, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that Petitioner is the son of Basudev Bhuyan, who was one of the Applicants in LA Misc. Case No.304 of 2004. The award under Section 11 of the Act was passed for acquisition of the land of the father of the Petitioner and his siblings, namely, proforma Opposite Party Nos.4 to 6. Being not satisfied, they filed an application before the Land Acquisition Officer, Jagatsinghpur (Opposite Party No.2) under Section 18 of the Act to refer the matter for enhancement of compensation. The said reference was registered as LA Misc. Case No.304 of 2004 on the file of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagatsinghpur. 3. Section 20 of the Act mandates that the Civil Court after receipt of the application under Section 18 of the Act, shall issue notice to the parties to provide parties therein an opportunity of hearing. But in the instant case, the said mandatory provision has not been complied with. Referring to the order-sheet of LA Misc. Case No.304 of 2004 (Annexure-1 series) Ms. Pattanaik, learned counsel submits that LA Misc. Case was registered on 16th January, 2004 and thereafter the matter was adjourned to different dates for office note. Vide order dated 4th October, 2005, notices were directed to be issued to the parties including the father of the Petitioner. Thereafter, the matter was being adjourned awaiting SR. There WP(C) No.20065 of 2025 Page 2 of 7 is no material on record to show that notice under Section 20 of the Act was ever served on any of the parties to the said reference including the father of the Petitioner. In the meantime, the father of the Petitioner, namely, Basudev Bhuyan died on 18th May, 2019 and the Petitioner being the legal heir filed an application for substitution on 25th March, 2021. The said application was never taken up for consideration. 4. When the matter stood thus, learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagatsinghpur took up the matter on 6th February, 2023 and holding that neither the Petitioners therein nor their counsel was present on call, proceeded to confirm the award passed under Section 11 of the Act. While parting with the impugned order, learned Civil Judge observed that due to unwillingness of the Petitioners (in the reference under Section 18 of the Act), to proceed further as well as considering heavy pendency of cases in the said Court, it was not found just and reasonable to further linger the matter and jumped to pass the impugned order by confirming the award. 5. It is her submission that when a reference is made under Section 18 of the Act, the Civil Court is obliged to answer the reference on merit. In the instant case, a cryptic order has been passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagatsinghpur confirming the award under Section 11 of the Act. 6. As no notice was either served on the father of the Petitioner or on the Petitioner, he had no occasion to know WP(C) No.20065 of 2025 Page 3 of 7 about the proceeding of LA Misc. Case No.304 of 2004. As such, some delay occurred in filing the writ petition. Hence, she prays for setting aside the impugned order at Annexure-2 and to remit the matter to learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagatsinghpur for fresh adjudication of the reference under Section 18 of the Act (LA Misc. Case No.304 of 2004) on merit affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. 7. Mr. Dash, learned Additional Standing Counsel submits that although ample opportunities were provided to the father of the Petitioner and other co-sharers of the land acquired, they did not avail the same. The Petitioner though stated to have filed an application for substitution but never pursued the same before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagatsinghpur. As such, neither the Applicant in the proceeding under Section 18 of the Act nor the Petitioner was diligent in pursuing their matter. Hence, learned Civil Judge had no other option than to confirm the award passed under Section 11 of the Act. As such, there is no illegality in the impugned order. 8. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the certified copy of the order-sheet filed along with the writ petition (Annexure-1 series), it appears that upon receipt of the application on reference under Section 18 of the Act, learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagatsinghpur registered LA Misc. Case No.304 of 2004 on his Board. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned to different dates for office note. It appears that on WP(C) No.20065 of 2025 Page 4 of 7 4th October, 2005, the office note was made ready and learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagatsinghpur directed to issue notice to the parties in terms of Section 20 of the Act. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned to different dates awaiting SR from the parties. Perusal of the entire order-sheet does not disclose that the notices, if any issued, were ever served on the parties. In the meantime, father of the Petitioner, who was one of the Applicants in the reference under Section 18 of the Act, namely, Basudev Bhuyan, died on 18th May, 2019. It is stated that an application was filed on 25th March, 2021 by the Petitioner for substitution. The said application appears to have not been considered by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagatsinghpur before passing the impugned order. As such, it is apparent that the order under Annexure-2 was passed against a dead person, namely, Late Basudev Bhuyan. Law is well-settled that order passed against a dead person is a nullity. 8.1. From the order-sheet of L.A. Misc. Case No.304 of 2004 at Annexure-1 series, it is apparent that there is blatant violation of the provision under Section 20 of the Act. No opportunity was provided either to the Applicants in the petition under Section 18 of the Act or to the Petitioner (in the writ petition) to contest the said proceeding. It further appears that while confirming the award, learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagatsinghpur has observed as follows: “… … … Taking into account the period of long pendency of the case, unwillingness of the petitioner to proceed the heavy further and considering pendency position in the current situation and also WP(C) No.20065 of 2025 Page 5 of 7 considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it is not found just and reasonable to further linger the matter. Hence, the order passed previously is confirmed. Return the petition to the Land Acquisition Officer, Jagatsinghpur. Dictated & corrected. Sd/- Senior Civil Judge” 9. Thus, it is apparent that learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagatsinghpur has not made any endeavour to scrutinize the material, if any available on record and pass a reasoned order on merit. In the case of Neelagangabai and another Vrs. State of Karnataka and others; 1990 AIR SC 1321, State of Mizoram Vrs. Biakchhawana; 1995 SCC (1) 156 and Rajmani Vrs. The Collector, Raipur; 1996 (5) SCC 701, it is held that non-compliance of the provision under Section 20 of the Act vitiates the order passed under Section 18 of the Act. Thus, the impugned order being void ab initio, is not sustainable in the eye of law and facts. 10. In view of the above, the impugned order under Annexure-2 is set aside. The matter is remitted to learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagatsinghpur for de novo adjudication of the reference under Section 18 of the Act on its own merit providing opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. The Petitioner is also permitted to file a fresh application for substitution of his father along with a legal heir certificate, which shall be considered by learned Civil Judge before proceeding to adjudicate the reference. WP(C) No.20065 of 2025 Page 6 of 7 11. The writ petition is accordingly allowed to the aforesaid extent. 12. To avoid further delay in the matter, the Petitioner shall appear before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagatsinghpur on 6th September, 2025 to receive further instruction in the matter. (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge (Savitri Ratho) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated, the 1st August, 2025/RKS Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RANJAN KUMAR SETHI Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 13-Aug-2025 18:17:49 WP(C) No.20065 of 2025 Page 7 of 7