Land Acquisition Collector vs Siba Prasad Mohanty And
2023 Latest Caselaw 14884 Ori

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                              LAA No.87 of 2008

Land Acquisition Collector,          .....                             Appellant
Cuttack
                                                         Mr. B. Panigrahi, ASC
                                     Vs.
Siba Prasad Mohanty and              .....                          Respondents
others

                   CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA

                                            ORDER

17.11.2023 Order No. The matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

06.

2. As per Office Note, pursuant to Order dated 27.07.2015 in Misc. Case No.120 of 2015, though notices were issued to Respondent Nos. 1 to 10 by Registered Post with A.D. on limitation, notices sent to the Respondent Nos.2, 7 and 8 returned unserved with a noting "addressee expired returned to sender".

3. So far as notice to Respondent No.6, the same has also returned unserved with a noting in Odia, the name of the Respondent No.6 is wrongly reflected, the said Respondent refused to receive the notice. Hence, it was returned. Though this Appeal is of the year, 2008, no step has been taken since 2015 by the State Appellant for substitution of the legal heirs of the Respondent Nos. 2, 7 and 8 so also issuing notice to Respondent No.6 afresh.

4. That apart, on perusal of the impugned award passed in L.A. Case No.3 of 2000, it is ascertained that the Land Acquisition Collector awarded a compensation of Rs.8,820/- in favour of the present Respondents for acquiring 3 decimals of land, which was enhanced to Rs.20,000/- per guntha by the Referral Court.

5. It is further revealed from Paragraph-6 of the Award, the referral Court, relying on the judgment exhibited as Ext. 1 passed by the same Court in L.A. Case No.24 of 2001 so also Sale Deeds, as detailed in the said Paragraph of the impugned judgment, enhanced the compensation amount and determined the valuation of the land to be Rs.20,000/- per guntha.

6. However, without entering into the merit of the Appeal, the same stands dismissed for non-taking of steps for substitution of Respondent Nos. 2, 7 and 8 so also issuance of notice afresh to Respondent No.6 since 2015 and on the ground of delay and latches.

7. Since the Appeal stands dismissed on the ground of laches for non-taking of steps, as detailed above, for the last eight years, Registry is directed to communicate this Order to the Referral Court so also Respondents, on whom notice on limitation were duly served, as indicated above.

                                                                         (S.K. MISHRA)
               padma                                                         JUDGE



Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: PADMA CHARAN DASH
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 20-Nov-2023 13:26:27