Orissa High Court
Gokul Ganda @ Gardia (Since Dead) vs Special Land Acquisition Officer on 1 May, 2025
Author: M.S. Sahoo
Bench: M.S. Sahoo
A.F.R.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
LAA No.65 of 2015
An application under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894.
---------------
Gokul Ganda @ Gardia (since dead),
represented by his Legal Representatives
Usha Gardia and others ... ... Appellants
-Versus-
Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Ultra Mega Power Project, Sundargarh
and others ... ... Respondents
For Appellants : Mr. S. K. Sahoo, Advocate
For Respondents : Mr. G. N. Sahu, Advocate
(Respondent nos.3 to 9)
Mr. A. Sethy, ASC
(For Respondent nos.1 and 2)
------------------
P R E S E N T:
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of hearing & Judgment : 01.05.2025
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
M.S.SAHOO, J. The appeal has been filed by the appellant under
Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In the
appeal challenge is to the judgment dated 23.09.2013
passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sundargarh in
Page 1 of 10
Land Acquisition Reference Case No.313 of 2013 arising
out of L.A. Case No.11 of 2010 of Special Land
Acquisition Officer (LAO), Ultra Mega Power Project
(UMPP), Sundargarh. The appellant-Gokul Ganda @
Gardia as mentioned in the cause title unfortunately
passed away during pendency of this appeal and he has
been substituted by his legal representatives, namely,
1(a), 1(b), 1(c), 1(d) and 1(e) being represented before this
Court in the appeal by the learned counsel, Mr. Sahoo.
2. The judgment dated 23.09.2015 was post reference
under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 made
by the Spl. LAO, UMPP, Sundargarh after a dispute
arose. The predecessor-in-interest of the appellants, i.e.,
the deceased-appellant raised a dispute regarding
apportionment of compensation amount of
Rs.67,73,689/- that was awarded by the Special Land
Acquisition Officer, UMPP, Sundargarh in L.A. Case
No.11 of 2010, with respect to acquisition of land
measuring an area of Ac.2.980 decimals under 'Hal
khata' no.110 of mouza-Kirei for the Ultra Mega Power
Project, Bhedabahal in the district of Sundargarh.
LAA No.65 of 2015 Page 2 of 10
3. Initially the award of compensation was in favour of
Gokul Gardia purportedly for acquisition of the land of
his 'father' Sriram Ganda, S/o. Trilochana Ganda of
village Kirei. In the proceeding; L.A. Reference Case
No.313 of 2013 before the learned Senior Civil Judge,
Sundargarh, Sakuntala Ganda, W/o- Late Krushna
Kansrali was the petitioner. After she passed away she
was substituted by her legal heirs. The appellant (since
deceased) was the opposite party no.3 in the proceeding
before the learned Senior Civil Judge.
4. Sakuntala Ganda claimed herself to be the sole
surviving legal heir of her brother-Sriram Ganda whose
land was acquired. She filed W.P.(C) No.24112 of 2013
claiming herself to be the sole legal heir to be entitled to
the LA Compensation awarded in favour of Late Sriram
Ganda who died. She raised a dispute regarding the
relationship between the awardee Gokul Gardia @ Ganda
and the land oustee Sriram Ganda. This Court directed
the Spl. LAO to refer the matter to the Civil Court. The
Land Acquisition Officer, Sundargarh referred the matter
to the Civil Court under Section 30 of L.A. Act, 1894.
LAA No.65 of 2015 Page 3 of 10
It was the case of the Sakuntala (petitioner before
the learned Senior Civil Judge) that Sriram who died
issueless was no way related to the appellant (since
deceased) Gokul, but no action was taken by the Land
Acquisition Officer, but award was made in favour of
Gokul claiming to be the son of Sriram. Sakuntala
preferred W.P.(C) No.24112 of 2013. This Court by order
dated 10.12.2013 disposed of the writ petition directing
the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter to the
Civil Court under Section 30 of the L.A. Act. After the
reference was made and the matter was taken up for
adjudication.
5. It was alleged in the petition before the Senior Civil
Judge by the petitioner-Sakuntala that Gokul Gardia
manipulated documents like voter identity card, aadhar
card claiming himself to be the natural son of Sriram and
sold some land out of khata no.110 impersonating to be
the son of Sriram, but Gokul Gardia has no right, title
and interest over the property of Sriram. As the original
petitioner-Sakuntala died on 05.07.2014, she was
substituted as indicated above.
LAA No.65 of 2015 Page 4 of 10
6. The opposite party no.3 in the reference, the
present appellant-Gokul filed his show cause denying the
claim of the petitioner. He contended that he is 'Gokul
Gardia'. He stated 'Gokul Ganda' and 'Gokul Gardia' are
one and the same person. He being the son of late Sriram
Ganda and entitled for the compensation awarded. He
relied on the sale deeds executed by him describing
himself to be the son of Sriram. He denied the allegation
in the petition that he is actually son of Mangulu Gardia.
Before the Senior Civil Judge, the substituted petitioners,
i.e., legal heirs examined four witnesses including
petitioner 1(a). Mandara Tanty (Respondent no.3 in the
present appeal) who adduced evidence as P.W.1, scribe of
a will made by Sriram in favour of Sakuntala was
examined as P.W.4. Further, the petitioners (present
respondents) proved 8 numbers of documents. The
documents such as certified copy of voter identity card
(Electoral Photo Identity Card) of opposite party no.3
(present appellant) was produced and marked without
objection as Ext.3 by the respondent-petitioners in the
Referral Court.
LAA No.65 of 2015 Page 5 of 10
7. The appellant-opposite party no.3 produced his
voter identity card marked as Ext.A, 'Aadhar Card'
marked as Ext.B and BPL Card marked as Ext.C. The
case of the appellant-opposite party no.3 is that in all
these cards his father's name has been mentioned as
Sriram Ganda.
8. The evidentiary value of Ext.3 has been dealt with
paragraph-14 (internal page-14) of the judgment. The
voter identity card of the appellant-opposite party no.3
was produced and proved mentioning his name to be
Gokul Garida, Son of Mangalu Gardia of village Kirei,
P.S./Dist-Sundargarh, No-OR/20/135/222155. The said
exhibit is also available in the LCR.
9. The petitioners, present respondents produced the
copy of the School admission register marked as Ext-8,
indicating the admission of the appellant-opposite party
no.3 in the School which is a 50 years old public
document. The copy of the School Admission Register
was produced certified by the Headmaster Kirei Primary
School, Kirei, Sundargarh a public servant and the
certificate was issued in due discharge of his public duty.
LAA No.65 of 2015 Page 6 of 10
Entry at Sl. No.192 of the School Admission Register
referred to Gokul Gardia, father's name being Mangulu
Gardia. Apparently, the learned counsel for appellant-
opposite party no.3 raised objection to the admission
register being marked as exhibit. But no rebuttal
evidence was adduced on behalf of opposite party no.3 to
refute the evidentiary value of said exhibit with the
entries or to disbelieve its genuineness or authenticity of
the entries.
10. To rely on the school admission register learned
referral court applied the principle laid down in the
decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mahila
Bajrangi (dead) through L.Rs and others v. Badribai
and another; 2013 AIR SCW 129: (2003) 2SCC 464. In
Mahila Bajrangi, it has been held by the Supreme Court
that "... Entries in School Admission Register and School
Leaving Certificate describing deceased as father of
defendant made long before dispute arose can be relied
on...."
11. Regarding admissibility of the entries in the school
admission register though the officer who made the entry
LAA No.65 of 2015 Page 7 of 10
is not produced and examined as witness the learned
referral Court also relied on Harpal Singh and another
v. State of Himachal Pradesh : AIR 1981 SC 361:
(1981) 1 SCC 560. In Harpal Singh (para-3 of SCC
print) rejecting the contention that in the absence of
examination of the officer concerned who recorded the
entry, the register is inadmissible in evidence the
Supreme Court held "... We cannot agree with him for the
simple reason that the entry was made by the concerned
official in the discharge of his official duties, that it is
therefore clearly admissible under Section 35 of the
Evidence Act and that it is not necessary for the
prosecution to examine its author. ..."
12. The learned referral court further observed that
assuming the claim of the appellant-opposite party no.3
may be correct that he is son of Sriram Ganda, he did not
adduce any positive evidence to prove the alleged fact
apart from producing his Aadhar Card, BPL Card or
Voter identity card. In fact two voter identity cards were
produced. The first one being that of Gokul Gardia, S/o.
Mangulu Gardia, produced by the respondent-petitioners.
LAA No.65 of 2015 Page 8 of 10
The opposite party no.3-appellant did not bring any
witness, being his family member, to depose that he is
son of late Sriram Ganda.
13. It has also to be considered that 'Aadhar Card',
'BPL Card' or 'Voter Identity' card are documents which
are issued by the respective issuing authority as per the
entries made by the person who applies for issuance of
such documents. None of the issuing authority or any
other person were examined as witnesses on behalf of
appellant-opposite party no.3 to state that the entries
were verified and the Gokul Gardia is son of Sriram
Ganda.
14. Having gone through the pleadings, evidence and
materials on record available in the LCR, pleadings in the
appeal and after hearing the learned counsel appearing
for the appellant and respondents and relying upon and
applying the principle laid down in Mahila Bajrangi
(supra), it is held that the judgment dated 23.09.2015
passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Sundargarh is just and proper and is not to be interfered
with and is confirmed in appeal.
LAA No.65 of 2015 Page 9 of 10
15. Accordingly, the LAA is dismissed.
The interim orders passed earlier stand vacated. In
the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no
order as to costs.
........................
M.S. Sahoo, J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 1st May, 2025/Gs/Radha Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: GAGAN BIHARI SAMAL Reason: Authentication Location: ohc Date: 27-May-2025 18:06:27 LAA No.65 of 2015 Page 10 of 10