Orissa High Court
Bata Krushna Pradhan vs Land Acquisition Officer on 12 August, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
L.A.A. No.33 of 2022
Bata Krushna Pradhan .... Appellant
Mr. M.K. Mohapatro,
Advocate
-versus-
Land Acquisition Officer, .... Respondent
Kalahandi
Mr. B. Panigrahi,
Additional Standing Counsel
CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
ORDER
12.08.2024
Order No.
11. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. This Appeal has been preferred challenging the
Judgment dated 29.06.2022 passed in LAR&R Case No.07
of 2022 on various grounds, including the ground that the
referral Court failed to take note of the R.S.Ds. marked as
Exts.2 & 3 in proof of bench mark valuation of the locality,
for the purpose of computation of the enhanced
compensation. Apart from the same, the photocopy of the
certified copy of the judgments passed in LAR&R Case
No.04 of 2022 and LAR&R Case No.05 of 2022, both dated
28.06.2022, passed by the said referral Court, have been
annexed to the Memorandum of Appeal as Annexures-3 &
4 respectively, to demonstrate before this Court that in
those cases, which are identical to the case of the present
Appellant (Petitioner before the Court below), the same
referral Court, taking note of the same R.S.D. marked as
Ext.3 in the present case, enhanced the compensation to
Rs.1,10,000/- per decimal.
3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant further submits,
though referral Court framed three issues but, while
dealing with Issue No.1, regarding the cause of action to
move the Authority under section 64 of the RFCTLAR&R
Act, 2013, erroneously and contrary to the settled position
of law, came to a conclusion that the present Appellant
(Petitioner before the Court below) has accepted the award
and has never objected the same either on Ext.G (Award) &
Ext.D (C.C. Voucher).
4. To substantiate his submission regarding cause of
action, learned Counsel for the Appellant cites the
Judgment of this Court dated 10.01.2023 passed in L.A.A.
No.44 of 2021 (Sasmita Senapati Vs. Land Acquisition
Zone Officer, Khurda Road, Boudh).
5. Mr. Panigrahi, learned counsel for the State, does not
dispute the said submission made by the learned Counsel
for the Appellant.
6. In view of the judgment of this Court in L.A.A. No.44
of 2021, which was passed relying on the judgments of the
Supreme Court in Ajit Singh and others Vs. State of
Punjab & others, reported in (1994) 4 SCC 67 and in
Chandra Bhan (Dead) Vs. Ghaziabad Development
Authority, reported in (2015) 15 SCC 343, this Court is
inclined to set aside the impugned judgment dated
29.06.2022 passed in LAR&R Case No.07 of 2022.
Accordingly, the same is hereby set aside and quashed and
the matter is remitted back to the Court of the LAR & R
Authority, Berhampur for re-adjudication of the said case
in accordance with law.
7. Needless to mention here that the referral Court, in
addition to the evidence on record, shall permit the present
Appellant (Petitioner before the Court below) so also the
learned State Counsel to lead further evidence, if so
required, and allow the present Appellant to exhibit the
Judgments passed in LAR&R Case No.04 of 2022 and
LAR&R Case No.05 of 2022, which were passed just one
day before passing of the impugned judgment in the
present case, to substantiate the claim of the
Appellant/Petitioner for further enhancement of the
compensation amount and would do well to dispose of the
said Referral Case within a period of four months from the
date of production of the certified copy of this order.
8. Accordingly, the Appeal stands allowed and disposed
of.
9. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on
proper application.
(S. K. Mishra)
Judge
Prasant
Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR PRADHAN
Date: 13-Aug-2024 16:21:58
