Orissa High Court
Tansukha Rai Agarwal (Since Dead) vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 4 November, 2024
Author: Murahari Sri Raman
Bench: Murahari Sri Raman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRP No.34 of 2013
Tansukha Rai Agarwal (since dead) .... Petitioner
through his LRs.
Mr. Gopinath Mishra, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Mr.Ashok Kumar Apat, AGA
Mr. Bibekananda Bhuyan, Advocate
along with Mr. Sourav Suman Bhuyan, Advocate (O.P.5)
Mr. K.K. Mishra, Advocate (O.P.7)
Mr. Asutosh Mishra, Advocate (O.Ps.3 & 4)
Mr. Pradeep Mohapatra, Advocate (O.P.9)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
Order No. ORDER
20. 04.11.2024
This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.
2. Challenging the order dated 19.11.2013 passed by the Land
Acquisition Officer, Angul in compliance of order of remit by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to an application purportedly to
have been filed under Sections 10, 18 and 30 of the Land
Acquisition Act,1894 (for short, "the Act"), whereby the Land
Acquisition Officer, present revision under Section 115, Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 is preferred.
3. It is submitted by Mr. Asutosh Mishra, learned counsel
appearing for the opposite party nos.3 and 4 that the petition cannot
be maintainable purportedly filed under Sections 10, 18 and 30 of
the Act, inasmuch as there is clear distinction between scope for
consideration of application under Section 18 and application under
Section 30 of the Act. In other words, a petition can only be made to
the Land Acquisition Officer either under Section 18 or under
Section 30 of the Act. A reference is made to a judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madan & another vs. State of
Maharashtra; AIR 2014 Supreme Court 846 , wherein at paragraph-
12 it has been held that while section 18 applies to situations where
the apportionment made in the Award is objected to by a
beneficiary thereunder, Section 30 applies when no apportionment
whatsoever is made by the Collector on account of conflicting
claims. A reference has also been made to a judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan Das & others vs.
State of UP & others; Civil Appeal Nos.2069-2070 of 2010,
disposed of vide judgment dated 26th February, 2010, wherein the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Collector can either make
a reference or refuse to make a reference to the court under Section
18 of the Act or under Section 30 of the Act, and such orders of the
Collector are merely acts of a statutory Authority in exercise of
statutory functions and are not adjudicatory in nature.
4. Mr. Sourav Suman Bhuyan, learned counsel appearing for
the opposite party no.5 cited a judgment of Bombay High Court in
the case of Sayed Mohamed Shah Abdul Hamid Kadri vs. State of
Maharashtra and another;2005 SCC Online Bombay 1010, wherein
it has been clarified that the Land Acquisition Officer is expected to
decide about apportionment of the compensation among the persons
interested, disclose the power of the Land Acquisition Officer to
look into the rights of the interested persons in relation to the land
sought to be acquired and, based on such rights, to decide about the
apportionment of the compensation.
5. Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party
nos.3 and 4 at this juncture intervened and stated that if the
application falls within the scope of the section 30 of the Act, then
the remedy is not available under section 115 of the Code of Civil
Procedure. Had the application been considered to have fallen
within the scope of Section 18 of the Act, the Land Acquisition
Officer had no jurisdiction to entertain the said application at all.
Therefore, he essentially urged that this Court is not competent to
entertain the present petition under Section 115 of the CPC.
6. Mr. Gopinath Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner
seeks a week's accommodation to obtain instruction in this regard.
7. List this matter on 13.11.2024 along with CRP No.35 of
2013. Registry is instructed to delete the name of Mr. G. Agarwal,
learned counsel for the opposite party no.7 from the case record.
(M.S. Raman)
Judge
Aswini
Designation: Personal Assistant (Secretary-in-charge)
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 04-Nov-2024 19:31:07
