Orissa High Court
Angul Sukinda Railway Ltd. vs Pitambar Sahoo And Another on 22 March, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
LAA No.47 of 2015
Angul Sukinda Railway Ltd., Press ..... Appellant
Chhak, Gajapati Nagar,
Bhubaneswar Dist. Khurda
Mr. S. Das, Advocate
Vs.
Pitambar Sahoo and another ..... Respondents
Mr. N. Panda, Advocate
(for Respondent No.1)
Mr. G.N. Rout, ASC
(for Respondent No.2)
CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
ORDER
22.03.2023
Order No. The matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
11.
2. Though this matter is listed under the heading 'For Orders'
along with other identical matters, on being mentioned by the learned
Counsel for the Appellant that these matters are covered by Order dated
3rd March, 2023, passed in W.P.(C) No.8721 of 2016 by a coordinate
Bench, Mr. H.S. Mishra, learned Counsel for the Respondent in
connected L.A.A. No.55 of 2015, vehemently opposes to the said
submission made by Mr. S. Das, learned Counsel for the Appellant and
submits that in most of the Appeals delay is yet to be condoned and
notice to the Respondents are also yet to be sent. He further submits
that some of the Respondents have died in the meantime in the
connected Appeals and unless the same are regularize, the Appeals
cannot be and should not be taken up for final disposal.
3. Mr. Panda, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1
in the present Appeal, relying on the judgment of the apex Court in
Gregory Patrao vs. Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals
Limited, reported in (2022) 9 Scale 946, submits that the present
Appellant cannot be said to be a "person interested" for determination
of compensation and the apex Court referring to other judgments of the
said Court, held that the allotee can neither be said to be a 'beneficiary'
nor a "party interested" for determination of compensation.
4. Mr. Sarthak Pradhan, learned Counsel for the Respondents in
LAA Nos.61, 63, 64, and 65 of 2022, referring to Section 50 (2) of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, submits that in any proceeding held before
the Collector or Court in such cases the local authority or company
concerned may appear and adduce evidence for the purpose of
determining the amount of compensation, provided that no such local
authority or company shall be entitled to demand a reference under
Section 18 of the said Act.
Mr. Pradhan further submits that the provision enshrined under
Section 50(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was not brought to the
notice of the Court while hearing the Writ Petition. He further submits
that the said order was passed based on the concession of the learned
Counsel for the Opposite Parties. Hence, present Appeal cannot be
entertained and disposed of at this juncture, relying on the said Order
passed in W.P.(C) No.8721 of 2017.
5. It is stated at the Bar that in the present Appeal, so also in some
of the connected Appeals, the compensation amount has already been
paid to the Respondents and the said Appeals have become infructuous.
6. Mr. Das, learned Counsel for the Appellant prays for two weeks
time to take instruction and have his further say in the said regard.
7. Matter be listed in the week commencing from 3rd April, 2023
along with connected matters.
8. Mr. Rout, learned Counsel for the State-Respondent is also
directed to take instruction regarding all the cases listed today along
with the present Appeal, with regard to status of compensation whether
paid in terms of the Order passed by the court below and apprise the
Court on the next date of listing.
(S.K. MISHRA)
padma JUDGE
