Orissa High Court
Kumari Goud vs Land Acquisition Officer on 2 April, 2024
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 : 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.
"2. On the day of award a protest petition was
received on 04.12.2020 from the claimant. It is
a fact that the petitioner received the
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"
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
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
compensation without protest.
Furthermore, Your Honorable 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:
"6. For better appreciation, it 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 to demonstrate that the said
provisions are almost similar to each other.
"18. Reference to Court. - (1) Any
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.
64. Reference to Authority.-(1) Any
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 land, the
amount of the compensation, the
person to whom it is payable, the
rights of Rehabilitation and
Resettlement under Chapters V and VI
L.A.A. No.44 of 2023 Page 5 of 8
or the apportionment of the
compensation among the persons
interested:
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:
Provided further that where the
Collector fails to make such reference
within the period so specified, 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)
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 limitation, will 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 State, which is the only
protection granted to the owner of the land.
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
disposed of.
..............................
S.K. MISHRA, J.
High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
The 2nd April, 2024 /Prasant
Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR PRADHAN
Date: 06-Apr-2024 16:53:01
