The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 10-Nov-2025 17:45:05 RVWPET Nos.174 of 2025 along with RVWPET No.175 of 2025 (From the judgement dated 20.06.2025 passed in W.P.(C) Nos.10677 of 2025 and 11001 of 2025) Basanti Banjara (In RVWPET No.174 of 2025) Chamru Parabhua @ Parabhoi @ Lohar (In RVWPET No.175 of 2025) …. Petitioner(s) Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, Lower Indra Irrigation Project, Kanhariar …. Opposite Party (s) -versus- Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Petitioner(s) For Opposite Party (s) : : Mr. Krushna Chandra Dash, Adv. Mr. Debasish Nayak, AGA CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-08.09.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-31.10.2025 Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. Since both petitions involve an identical question of law, they are heard analogously and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. In both the Review Petitions, the petitioners seek a direction from this Court to recall and set aside the earlier dismissal orders, restore LAR Case Nos. 196/2010 and 170/2010 to the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Page 1 of 11 Nuapada, and direct fresh adjudication on merits ensuring just
Facts
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 10-Nov-2025 17:45:05 compensation for the acquired lands. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: (i) The petitioners’ lands were acquired by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Khariar in 2001 for the construction of the Lower Indra Irrigation Project in Nuapada district. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, they lodged protest petitions seeking higher rates, leading to references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, registered as LAR Case Nos. 196/2010 and 170/2010 before the Senior Civil Judge, Nuapada. (ii) During hearing of the reference cases, the learned Senior Civil Judge rejected the petitioners’ adjournment prayers and, by orders dated 16.09.2014 and 19.12.2017, closed and returned the references to the Land Acquisition Officer without adjudication or determining compensation, contrary to the statutory mandate. (iii) The petitioners filed restoration petitions (CMA No. 279/2017 and CMA No. 01/2020), which were dismissed solely on the ground of delay by orders dated 06.12.2023 and 17.05.2024. Their writ petitions challenging these orders were also dismissed by the High Court. (iv) The petitioners now seek review of the High Court’s dismissal orders, pointing out that in identical cases (Annexure-5 series), the High Court has set aside similar dismissal orders and restored LAR cases of similarly placed land losers before the same court. (v) The petitioners contend that their lands are of the same nature and locality as those in LAR Nos. 193/2010, 221/2016, and 249/2017, in which Page 2 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 10-Nov-2025 17:45:05 the Senior Civil Judge, Nuapada has awarded significantly higher compensation rates—Rs. 1,84,000/- per acre for Mala/Atta land, Rs. 2,30,000/- per acre for Bema/Bahal land, and Rs. 3,45,000/- per acre for Gharabari land—whereas the petitioners received merely Rs. 12,093/-, Rs. 32,692/-, and Rs. 75,000/- per acre respectively. II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS: 4. (i) Learned counsel for the Petitioners earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: The closure of the reference proceedings under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act without adjudication or determination of compensation is illegal and contrary to law, as the referral court is bound to render an award once a reference is made. (ii) The dismissal of restoration petitions solely on technical grounds of delay violates Article 300-A of the Constitution, since the right to receive just compensation for acquired land is a constitutional and statutory right which cannot be defeated by limitation. (iii) The learned Civil Judge failed to comply with Section 20 of the CPC by not issuing any notice or granting a last opportunity before closing the reference, rendering the order arbitrary and void. (iv) The petitioners’ absence was due to communication gaps with counsel, and the delay in seeking restoration was neither deliberate nor negligent; hence a liberal approach consistent with the principle of substantial justice ought to have been adopted. (v) A reference case under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is not a civil suit, and the claimants cannot be treated as plaintiffs under the CPC Page 3 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 10-Nov-2025 17:45:05 or Limitation Act; hence, their cases cannot be dismissed for non- appearance or delay. (vi) The petitioners’ case stands on identical footing with several others (LAR Nos. 46/2007, 130/2010, 188/2010) where similar closure and dismissal orders were later set aside and the cases restored by the High Court. Failure to follow these binding precedents renders the impugned orders per incuriam and discriminatory. (vii) The arbitrary closure and non-adjudication of the reference amounts to denial of fair compensation and is inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Khazan Singh (Dead) by LRs v. Union of India1, which held that reference cases cannot be dropped without decision on merits. (viii) The non-payment of fair compensation constitutes a continuing cause of action; therefore, the question of delay does not arise, and restoration of the reference cases is essential to prevent irreparable loss and ensure parity and justice to the land losers. III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES: 5. The Government Pleader, representing the State, opposed both restoration petitions without filing any written objection. It was contended that the petitioners had been afforded multiple opportunities by the referral court to lead evidence and substantiate their claim for enhanced compensation. However, despite repeated adjournments, they failed to prosecute the cases, which led the court to reasonably conclude that the petitioners were satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. Consequently, the references were closed after due consideration. Accordingly, it was 1 2002 (1) SCR 431. Page 4 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 10-Nov-2025 17:45:05 contended that the restoration pleas lacked merit and were not maintainable either before the referral court or in writ jurisdiction. IV. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 6. 7.
Legal Reasoning
226/227 of the Constitution is extremely narrow. It is well settled that a review is not an appeal in disguise nor an opportunity for a fresh hearing. Finality attaches to a judgment unless compelling grounds for review are demonstrated, such as a clear error apparent on the face of the record or the discovery of new and important evidence which could not be produced earlier despite due diligence. Even then, the error must be manifest and the injustice palpable, a mere possibility of another view or a re-argument on merits is not enough. 8. As memorably cautioned by the Supreme Court in the case of Northern Caterers (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi2, a prayer for review can all too often be like asking for the moon. It basically highlighted the rarity with which the review jurisdiction is to be exercised. The relevant excerpts are produced below: “A plea for review, unless the first judicial view is manifestly distorted, is like asking for the moon. A forensic defeat cannot be avenged by an invitation to have a second look, hopeful of discovery of flaws and reversal of result. I agree with my learned brother Pathak J, both on the restrictive review jurisdiction and the rejection of the prayer in this case- subject to the qualifications made below.” 2 1980 AIR 674. Page 5 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 10-Nov-2025 17:45:05 9. Nonetheless, the law recognizes that in order to prevent a miscarriage of justice, the court may step in under this jurisdiction where a glaring omission or patent mistake has crept into the judgment, resulting in manifest injustice. In such exceptional instances, a review can be entertained to correct the error and do full and effective justice. 10. In fact, the Supreme Court in the case of Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab3 held that nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution prohibits a High Court from reviewing its own order to correct an error or prevent injustice. Such a power inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction and can be exercised to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by the court. The relevant excerpts are produced below: “It is sufficient to say that there is nothing in Art. 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. Here the previous order of Khosla, J., affected the interests of persons who were not made parties to the proceeding before him. It was at their instance and for giving them a hearing that Khosla’ J. entertained the second petition. In doing so, he merely did what the principles of natural justice required him to do. It is said that the respondents before us had no. right to apply for review because they were not parties to the previous proceedings.” 11. The aforementioned judicial precedent establishes a lenient exception to the usual finality of writ orders. It acknowledges that while the writ jurisdiction isn’t ordinarily a forum for re-litigation, High Courts can liberally invoke review in exceptional cases, e.g. where a prior writ order 3 AIR 1963 SUPREME COURT 1909. Page 6 of 11 suffers from a procedural unfairness or a patent error leading to injustice. 12. Mindful of these limitations, the Court is conscious that the present Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 10-Nov-2025 17:45:05 review may appear to travel a little beyond the conventional bounds of this jurisdiction. Yet, to decline interference would be to allow a manifest injustice to stand unchecked. The petitioners before this Court are poor and rustic landowners who, lacking legal sophistication and adequate assistance, have suffered deprivation of their rightful compensation. The Court cannot, in good conscience, remain a silent spectator to such injustice. In these exceptional circumstances, the exercise of review power becomes not merely permissible but necessary to uphold the constitutional promise under Article 300-A, to prevent miscarriage of justice, and to reaffirm the faith of ordinary citizens in the fairness and compassion of the judicial process. 13. 14. Having clarified the scope and necessity of invoking review jurisdiction to remedy manifest injustice, the Court now turns to the substantive issues arising in the case. With the question of maintainability thus settled, attention may be directed to the core matters in controversy. The crucial issues are (i) the legality of closing and returning the Section 18 references without adjudication, and (ii) the consequences of dismissal of the restoration petitions on the ground of delay. In resolving these issues, this Court is guided by the statutory framework, constitutional principles and binding precedents. 15. Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 mandates that any person dissatisfied with the Collector’s award may require a reference to a civil court. Once such a valid reference is made, Section 20 of the Act enjoins Page 7 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 10-Nov-2025 17:45:05 the court to proceed to determine the objection, and to hold necessary inquiry. Section 26(1) then requires the court to pass an award (deemed a decree) specifying just compensation. This statutory scheme leaves no doubt that a reference must be adjudicated on its merits. 16. The Supreme Court in the case of Khazan Singh (Supra) emphatically held that a civil court has no jurisdiction to dismiss a reference for non- appearance of the claimant. The Court observed that the civil court has to pass an award in answer to the reference and that if a party fails to participate, it does so at its own risk, but that non-participation would not confer jurisdiction on the civil court to dismiss the reference for default. The relevant excerpts are produced below: “The provisions above subsumed would thus make it clear that the Civil Court has to pass an award in answer to the reference made by the Collector under Section 18 of the Act. If any party to whom notice has been served by the Civil Court did not participate in the inquiry it would only be at his risk because an award would be passed perhaps to the detriment of the concerned party. But non-participation of any party would not confer jurisdiction on the Civil Court to dismiss the reference for default.” 17. 18. Thus, both Sections 20 and 26 compel adjudication, and dismissal for default is ultra vires the Act. The ruling also stresses that a reference cannot simply be closed or returned without a hearing on the evidence and an award on the merits. In the present case the trial court’s orders of 16.09.2014 and 19.12.2017 closed the references without adjudication. No issue was decided, no evidence considered, and no award passed. This approach is directly contrary to the statutory mandate and to the settled law. The proceedings should not have been treated as a civil suit subject to Order Page 8 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 10-Nov-2025 17:45:05 IX CPC rules of dismissal. As held in Khazan Singh (Supra), the reference court was bound to proceed with an inquiry and pass an award under Section 26, irrespective of any adjournment petitions or non-appearance. Insofar as the learned Civil Judge returned the references without disposing them on merits, those orders are void. This Court is therefore compelled to set aside the impugned closure orders and restore the cases. 19. The petitioners’ restoration applications (CMA No.279/2017 and CMA No.1/2020) were dismissed by learned courts solely on the ground of inordinate delay. The State raises no new substantial objection. However, on constitutional principles the mere delay in prosecuting a rightful claim to compensation cannot defeat justice. The right to receive fair compensation for compulsorily acquired land is a facet of the right to property under Article 300-A. 20. In fact, the Supreme Court in the case of Jayalakshmamma v. State of Karnataka4 held that non-payment of compensation for decades contravenes Article 300A and violates the constitutional guarantee. The relevant excerpts are produced below: “9. The question as to whether physical possession of the parcel of land owned by the appellants had been taken or not is apparently a disputed question of fact which need not be gone into by us. But the fact remains that no amount of compensation was offered or paid to the appellants till commencement of the second round of lis through the writ petitions filed in the year 2014, and it was much thereafter that the compensation amount was deposited on 11.06.2019. 4 Civil Appeal No. 13785 of 2024. Page 9 of 11 21. 22. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 10-Nov-2025 17:45:05 10. In our considered view mere passing of an award on 21.04.1986 did not absolve the respondents of their statutory obligation to offer fair and just compensation to the expropriated land owners. Denial thereof is directly in the teeth of Article 300A of the Constitution of India.” A landowner’s claim for compensation is thus a continuing cause of action and a matter of constitutional right. Hence the petitioners’ right to just compensation is not time-barred, and ought to be advanced rather than defeated by procedure. It must also be taken into consideration that this Court has taken a consistent approach in identical cases. In several other LAR references involving the same project and similar lands (e.g. LAR 193/2010, 221/2016, 249/2017), the High Court has set aside dismissals and directed restoration, recognizing that the reference court must decide each case on merits. In those cases the trial court eventually awarded compensation of Rs.1,84,000, Rs.2,30,000 and Rs.3,45,000 per acre for different categories of land. By contrast, the petitioners here received only nominal amounts (Rs.12,093, Rs.32,692 and Rs.75,000 per acre). Given the identical nature, locality and period of acquisition, it would be inequitable and discriminatory to exclude petitioners from the same substantive remedy enjoyed by similarly situated claimants. To deny the petitioners a hearing, when others with no real difference in facts got adjudication and higher awards, would undermine the rule of law. No binding precedent or statutory provision calls for such divergence; indeed, binding case-law forbids it. 23. In sum, for all the above reasons we find that the learned courts below committed jurisdictional error in dismissing the restoration petitions Page 10 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 10-Nov-2025 17:45:05 and refusing to apply well-settled legal principles. The petitioners’ claim to fair compensation under the Act and the Constitution remains alive and cannot be extinguished on technical grounds. V. CONCLUSION: 24. 25. In view of these findings, the Review Petitions are allowed. The impugned orders dated 06.12.2023 and 17.05.2024 dismissing the restoration applications are set aside. The reference cases (LAR Case Nos. 196/2010 and 170/2010) are restored to the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nuapada. The Special Land Acquisition Officer shall proceed with the references and cause notice to the petitioners (as already done), and the learned trial court shall adjudicate the objections and pass awards in accordance with law, taking into account all evidence. The petitioners are entitled to any enhanced compensation found to be due, with statutory benefits. The parties shall cooperate to conclude the proceedings expeditiously. 26. Interim order, if any, passed earlier in any of the afore-mentioned RVWPETS stands vacated. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 31st Oct., 2025 Page 11 of 11
Arguments
Heard Learned Counsel for parties and perused the documents placed before this Court. The Court begins by observing that its power of review under Articles