The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.19213 of 2025 (An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India) 1. Gobinda Sagaria,, aged about 40 years, S/o- Late Rameswar Sagaria, AT/PO-Bolda, P.S.- * * * * Komna, Dist-Nuapada 2. Uttamdei Sagaria,, aged about 65 years, W/o- Late Rameswar Sagaria, AT/PO-Bolda, P.S.- Komna, Dist-Nuapada 3. Kirtan Sagaria,, aged about 45 years, S/o- Late Anata Ram Sagaria, AT/PO-Bolda, P.S.-Komna, Dist-Nuapada 4. Pustam Sagaria,, aged about 30 years, S/o- Late Anata Ram Sagaria, AT/PO-Bolda, P.S.-Komna, Dist-Nuapada 5. Putne Sagaria,, aged about 40 years, S/o- Late Anata Ram Sagaria, AT/PO-Bolda, P.S.-Komna, Dist-Nuapada 6. Durjan Sagaria,, aged about 45 years, S/o- Late Luthi Sagaria, AT/PO-Bolda, P.S.-Boden, Dist- Nuapada 7. Kalimati Sagaria,, aged about 65 years, D/o- Late Luthi Sagaria, AT/PO-Bolda, P.S.-Boden, Dist-Nuapada 8. Radhe Sagaria,, aged about 50 years, D/o- Late Luthi Sagaria, AT/PO-Bolda, P.S.-Boden, Dist- Nuapada W.P.(C) No.19213 of 2025 Page 1 of 9 // 2 // 9. Gharmani Sagari,, aged about 48 years, D/o- Late Luthi Sagaria, AT/PO-Bolda, P.S.-Boden, Dist-Nuapada .... Petitioners -versus- 1. State of Odisha represented by its Secretary to its Government Water Resources Department, Bhubaneswar, At/P.O./P.S.-Bhubaneswar, Dist- Khurda 2. Special Land Acquisition Officer-cum- Collector, Land Acquisition, Lower Indra Irrigation Project, Khariar, AT/PO-Khariar,, Dist-Nuapada. . …. Opp. Parties
Legal Reasoning
Advocates for the parties For Petitioners :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Dhananjaya Mund, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. Siba Narayan Biswal, Additional Standing Counsel (for Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2) CORAM:
Decision
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Heard and disposed of: 22.08.2025 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T By the Bench 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode). 2. The Petitioners in this writ petition seek to challenge the order dated 16th July, 2022 under Annexure-10 passed by the W.P.(C) No.19213 of 2025 Page 2 of 9 // 3 // learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nuapada in CMA No.140 of 2017 and further prays for a direction to allow the petition for restoration of LAR Case No.05 of 2010 (inadvertently typed as CMA No.140 of 2017 in the prayer portion of the writ petition filed under Section 151 of CPC). 3. Mr. D. Mund, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the predecessors of the Petitioners, namely, Anata Ram Sagaria and Rameswar Sagaria were the recorded owners of the land acquired. Compensation was awarded under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity ‘the Act’). Being not satisfied with the quantum of award, they filed an application under Annexure-2 to refer the matter to the civil Court. Accordingly, the Special Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Collector, Land Acquisition, Lower Indra Irrigation Project, Khariar (Opposite Party No.2) referred the matter to the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nuapada under Section 18 of the Act. The said reference was registered as LAR Case No.05 of 2010. 4. It is submitted that the application for reference of the matter under Annexure-2 for higher compensation was filed by Rameswar Sagaria and Anata Ram Sagaria on 18th July, 2003. But the matter was referred to the civil Court on 21st January, 2010. By then, said Anata Ram Sagaria had already died on 20th October, 2009 leaving behind his legal heirs. The death certificate as well as legal heir certificate of Late Anata Ram Sagaria have been annexed to the writ petition as Annexures-4 & 5 respectively. Upon registration of the reference, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nuapada was W.P.(C) No.19213 of 2025 Page 3 of 9 // 4 // required to issue notice to the land owners or their legal heirs under Section 20 of the Act. Procedure provided under Section 20 of the Act, which is mandatory in nature, was not complied with in the present case. The same is apparent from the order sheet of LAR Case No.05 of 2010 under Annexure-6. As notice was not served on the recorded tenants or their legal heirs, they had no occasion to know about the proceedings before learned civil Court and the date of hearing of the reference. Thus, they could not remain present on 21st September, 2013 when the reference was taken up for hearing. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nuapada holding that the land owners are not interested to proceed with the case, confirmed the award under Section 11 of the Act. The legal heirs of the Petitioners having come to know about the order dated 21st September, 2013 under Annexure-6, filed an application under Section 151 of CPC for setting aside the said order and to restore LAR Case No.05 of 2010 for hearing of the reference on merit. The said petition was also rejected vide order dated 16th July, 2022 under Annexure-10. Thus, being aggrieved, the Petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking for the aforesaid relief. 5. It is further submitted by Mr. Mund, learned counsel for the Petitioners that although there is reference in the order sheet under Annexure-6 that on some dates the Petitioners therein (land owners) were represented, but, in fact, Anata Ram Sagaria could not have been represented as he was dead by the time reference of the case was made to the civil Court. Rameswar Sagaria was also bed ridden by then. Be that as it may, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), W.P.(C) No.19213 of 2025 Page 4 of 9 // 5 // Nuapda was required to answer the reference on merit. It appears from the order dated 21st September, 2013 under Annexure-6 that the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nuapda did not make any endeavour to answer the reference on merit. Hence, the order under Annexure-10 should be set aside and LAR Case No.05 of 2010 should be restored to the file to be heard afresh giving opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners. 6. Mr. Biswal, learned Additional Standing Counsel submits that the predecessors of the Petitioners were being represented till 24th July, 2012 as reveals from the order sheet in LAR Case No.05 of 2010 under Annexure-6 and thereafter, they failed to appear and participate in the hearing of the reference. Since the Petitioners had entered appearance before learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nuapada, there was no further requirement of compliance of Section 20 of the Act in the instant case. He further submits that since there was no evidence available on record for enhancement of the compensation, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nuapda had no other option than to confirm the award passed under Section 11 of the Act. 7. It is further submitted by Mr. Biswal, learned ASC that the application under Section 151 of CPC was filed more than three and half years after disposal of LAR Case No.05 of 2010. There is also no provision under the Act for restoration of the reference dismissed on merit. Thus, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nuapda had committed no error in rejecting the said application filed under W.P.(C) No.19213 of 2025 Page 5 of 9 // 6 // Annexure-10. He, therefore, submits that the writ petition merits no consideration and is liable to be dismissed. 8. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the case record. It appears that upon acquisition of land of Anata Ram Sagaria and Rameswar Sagari, LA Case No.189 of 2003 was initiated on the file of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Lower Indra Irrigation Project, Khariar and an award to the tune of Rs.3,39,154/- was passed under Section 11 of the Act in favour of said Anata Ram Sagaria and Rameswar Sagaria. They being not satisfied with such award, filed an application on 18th July, 2003 under Annexure-2 for reference of the matter to the civil Court for enhancement of compensation. After 7 years of filing such application, the matter was referred to the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nuapda on 21st January, 2010 under Annexure-3 in terms of Section 18 of the Act. Before the matter could be referred to learned civil Court, Anata Ram Sagaria died on 20th October, 2009 (Death Certificate under Annexure-4) leaving behind his legal heirs as per legal heir certificate under Annexure-5. However, on reference, LAR Case No.05 of 2010 was registered on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nuapda. By the time the reference was registered in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nuapda, Anata Ram Sagaria was already dead as would appear from Annexure-4 (Death Certificate). Apparently, notice under Section 20 of the Act was not served on either of the applicants or their legal heirs. However, the order sheet of LAR Case No.05 of 2010 (Annexure-6) reveals that Petitioners were being represented for W.P.(C) No.19213 of 2025 Page 6 of 9 // 7 // some days by an Advocate. When Ananta Ram Sagaria died before reference of the matter to the civil Court before and no substitution being made, his representation in the reference does not arise at all. It further appears from the order dated 21st September, 2013 under Annexure-6 that the Petitioners were absent and no step was taken on their behalf. Thus, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nuapda confirmed the award under Section 11 of the Act observing as under: “………. Hence it is presume that he is certified with the award received from the O.P. and accordingly he does not want to proceed with this case. In view of the above facts, the award passed by the L.A.O. is confirmed and the case is closed. Return the reference in original to the L.A.O. concerned.” Since Anata Ram was dead and Rameswar Sagaria was bedridden by the time the order dated 21st September, 2013 was passed, they had apparently no knowledge about the said order. 10. However, CMA No.140 of 2017 was filed under Section 151 of CPC for restoration of LAR Case No.05 of 2010 by the legal heirs of Anata Ram Sagaria, who are the Petitioners in this writ petition. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nuapada though recorded that by the time order dated 21st September, 2013 was passed both the land owners, namely, Anata Ram Sagaria and Rameswar Sagaria were dead, refused to restore LAR Case No.05 of 2010 by giving an opportunity of hearing to their legal heirs in the reference. 11. True it is that, no evidence was adduced by the parties before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nuapada in the reference W.P.(C) No.19213 of 2025 Page 7 of 9 // 8 // under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of the compensation, but it appears that the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nuapada mechanically proceeded with the matter without examining the materials available on record submitted by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Land Acquisition, Lower Indra Irrigation Project, Khariar to come to a conclusion with regard to adequacy of compensation awarded under Section 11 of the Act. 12. Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Petitioners being not provided with opportunity to participate in the proceeding before learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nuapada and as they are interested in pursuing the reference for enhancement of compensation for land acquisition, they should be given an opportunity of hearing by adducing evidence in support of their case. 13. Accordingly, this Court sets aside the order dated 21st September, 2013 under Annexure-6 passed in LAR Case No.05 of 2010 and order dated 16th July, 2022 in CMA No.140 of 2017 under Annexure-10 and remits the matter to the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nuapada for de novo adjudication of LAR Case No.05 of 2010 by providing opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence and participate in the hearing of the reference. Since the reference is of the year 2010, learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nuapada should make an endeavour for early disposal of the reference on merit. The parties are also directed to cooperate with the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nuapada for early disposal of the reference. W.P.(C) No.19213 of 2025 Page 8 of 9 // 9 // 14. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge Judge (Savitri Ratho) The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Dated the 22nd day of August, 2025/ Amit Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AMIT KUMAR MOHANTY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 26-Aug-2025 11:06:30 W.P.(C) No.19213 of 2025 Page 9 of 9