The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK L.A.A. No.44 of 2023 Kumari Goud …… Appellant -Versus- Land Acquisition Officer, Kalahandi & another ….. Respondents For Appellant : Mr. A. Panda, Advocate On behalf of Mr. M.K. Mohapatra, Advocate For Respondent No.1
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. B. Panigrahi, Additional Standing Counsel For Respondent No.2 : None CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date of Hearing and Judgment : 02.04.2024 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ S.K. Mishra, J. Though this Appeal has been listed under the heading “Fresh Admission”, on consent of learned Counsel for the parties, matter is taken up for hearing and final disposal at the stage of admission. 2. This Appeal has been preferred by the Appellant, challenging the judgment dated 15.07.2022 passed in LAR&R Case No.65 of 2021 so also the Order dated 18.09.2023 passed by the Presiding Officer, LAR & R Authority, Berhampur in L.A.R & R Review Case No.06 of 2022. 3. As is revealed from the impugned judgment passed in LAR&R Case No.65 of 2021, the Court below has observed that the present Appellant has received the compensation amount without any protest. Accordingly, the petition filed under Section 64 of the RFCTLAR&R Act, 2013 was dismissed on the ground that the Petitioner (Appellant herein) has no cause of action to file such a petition under the said Act, 2013. 4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant, drawing attention of this Court to the deposition of O.P.W. No.1 as at Annexure-6, submitted that the said witness, during his cross-examination, admitted that the present Appellant received the compensation amount with protest which is well reflected in the CC Voucher which was marked as Ext.D. Despite such admission made by the witness examined on behalf of the present Respondent so also the documentary evidence to substantiate such admission, which was also marked as Ext.D, the findings of the Court below is perverse. Hence, it deserves interference. In view of such submission, it L.A.A. No.44 of 2023 Page 2 of 8 would be apt to extract below the relevant portion from the deposition of O.P.W. No.1. fact “2. On the day of award a protest petition was received on 04.12.2020 from the claimant. It is a the the petitioner compensation with protest which is reflected in the CC Voucher (Ext.D) which is in the carbon copy of the original (as admitted by O.P.).xxxx” received that 5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant further submitted that the findings of the Court below being perverse, an application for review of the said judgment dated 15.07.2022 was filed on 01.09.2022 along with the CC Voucher and Objection Petition filed by his client on 04.12.2020 in L.A. No.01 of 2018, after obtaining the certified copies of the same. The said petition was also illegally rejected by the Court below vide L.A.R. & R Review Case No.06 of 2022 misinterpreting the settled position of law. Paragraph Nos.3, 5 & 6 of the application for review being relevant, are extracted below for ready reference. “3. That, the humble petitioner came across the copy of the deposition of the Opposite party wherein in the cross examination, he had admitted that a protest petition was received on the day of award from the claimant on dt. 04.12.2020. 4. XXX 5. That, in the meantime, applied for Certified Copy of C.C. Voucher & Objection petition filed on dt. 04.12.2020 of L.A. Case No.1/2018 and the same is filed before Your Honour Court L.A.A. No.44 of 2023 Page 3 of 8 without Your Honorable today and if your Honour perused the said copy of C.C. Voucher, it will be crystal clear that the C.C. Voucher contains 2 pages & in the 2nd page of the Voucher it is clearly reflects that the petitioners have received the compensation with protest. As because the opposite party filed only the first page of the C.C. Voucher only before your Honorable Court which has been marked as Ext.D, this Court came to the findings that the petitioner received the protest. compensation Furthermore, Court perused the Certified Copy of Objection filed before the Opposite Party dt. 04.12.2020, it will be clear that the Opposite party received the same by signing over it. 6. That, on a petition u/s 64 of RFCTLAR & R Act, 2013 filed by Giridhari Naik & others of the same Village whose lands were also acquired under the same Preliminary notification under Section 11 for the same purpose as that of the petitioner, Your Honorable Court in LAR & R Case No.63/2021 re-determined the market value of the acquired land for same Atta Kissam @ Rs.33,000/- only per decimal vide judgment dtd. 15.07.2022 and besides also in LAR&R Case No.64/2021 vide Judgment dt. 15.07.2022 fixed the market value of same Atta Kissam of land @ Rs.33,000/- per decimal” (Emphasis supplied) 6. That apart, drawing attention to the judgment dated 13.12.2022, passed in L.A.A. No.41 of 2021 (Sujata Senapati Vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Khurda Road, Boudh), which has been annexed to the Memorandum of Appeal as Annexure-7, learned Counsel for the Appellant L.A.A. No.44 of 2023 Page 4 of 8 further submitted that the case of the Petitioner is squarely covered by the said Judgment of this Court. 7. This Court, relying on the judgments of the apex Court reported in (1994) 4 SCC 67 (Ajit Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others), reported in (2015) 15 SCC 343 (Chandra Bhan (Dead) Vs. Ghaziabad Development Authority) in Sujata Senapati (supra), held as follows: For better appreciation, it “6. is apt to reproduce below the Section-18(1) of the L.A. Act, 1894, so also Section-64(1) of the RFCTLAR & R Act, 2013 the said to demonstrate provisions are almost similar to each other. that (1) Any “18. Reference to Court. - person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the person to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. to Authority.–(1) Any 64. Reference person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Authority, as the case may be, whether his objection be to the measurement of the amount of the compensation, the person to whom it is payable, the rights and Resettlement under Chapters V and VI Rehabilitation land, the of L.A.A. No.44 of 2023 Page 5 of 8 apportionment the or compensation among interested: the of the persons Provided that the Collector shall, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of application, make a reference to the appropriate Authority: the period so specified, Provided further that where the Collector fails to make such reference within the applicant may apply to the Authority, as the case may be, requesting it to direct the Collector to make the reference to it within a period of thirty days. (Emphasis supplied) limitation, will 7. That apart, on bare perusal of RFCTLAR & R Act, 2013 vis-avis L.A. Act, 1894, it is crystal clear that there is no such specific procedure or form provided under the said acts for recording the protest and the very fact of filing an application for reference by interested person within the stipulated period of lead to an inference of fact that the interested person never accepted the compensation without protest and the protest is very much inherent. The right to file a petition for proper assessment of the market value of the land acquired is inherent in the right of ownership of a person to the property that is sought to be acquired by the only the State, which protection granted to the owner of the land. is On a hyper-technical ground that express protest was not made, on the said basis State cannot deny the land owner, the right to seek reference to the Civil Court for a reasonable compensation. Fair administration of the State demands that they bestow objective approach to such a situation and citizens are not deprived of their property just for hyper-technical reason. 8. Further, the provisions do not prescribe any particular mode of protest. It is also no where postulate that the protest must be in L.A.A. No.44 of 2023 Page 6 of 8 writing. Hence, the referral Court should bear in mind the purport and purpose in reference. As the award of the Collector is nothing but an offer on behalf of the Government, the amount of compensation payable to a person, who is deprived of his property in a Welfare State under the State’s right of eminent domain, a person so deprived of his property is entitled to have fair and reasonable amount of compensation with reference to the true market value of the land as on the date of issuance of notification and the same should not be denied on mere technical plea.” (Emphasis supplied) 8. In view of the admission made by the witness examined on behalf of the State-Respondent during his cross- examination, as extracted above, and the settled position of law, since the Court below has rejected the reference petition solely on the ground that the present Appellant has received the compensation amount without any protest, this Court is of the view that the judgment of the Court below dated 15.07.2022 passed in LAR&R Case No.65 of 2021 so also the order dated 18.09.2023 passed in L.A.R. & R Review Case No.06 of 2022 are illegal and deserve to be set aside. 9. Accordingly, both the said judgment dated 15.07.2022 passed in LAR&R Case No.65 of 2021 and order dated 18.09.2023 passed in L.A.R. & R Review Case No.06 of 2022 are hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to L.A.A. No.44 of 2023 Page 7 of 8 the Court below for re-adjudication of LAR&R Case No.65 of 2021 in accordance with law. The Court below is directed to permit the parties to adduce further evidence, if they so desire. 10. As the referral case is of the year 2021, the referral Court is directed to conclude the said proceeding in LAR&R Case No.65 of 2021 at the earliest, preferably within a period of six months from the date of communication/production of the certified copy of this order after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties, as directed above. Needless to mention here that this Court has not expressed any opinion as to the merits of the referral case. 11. Accordingly, the Appeal stands allowed and
Decision
disposed of. …….…..……………… S.K. MISHRA, J. High Court of Orissa, Cuttack The 2nd April, 2024 /Prasant Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR PRADHAN Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 06-Apr-2024 16:53:01 Page 8 of 8 L.A.A. No.44 of 2023