[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Sanjib Kumar Mohapatra vs Zonal Officer-Cum-Land on 22 December, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
LAA No.73 of 2025
Sanjib Kumar Mohapatra .... Appellant
Mr. M.B. Rao, Advocate
-versus-
Zonal Officer-Cum-Land .... Respondents
Acquisition Officer,
Dhenkanal & others
Mrs. U. Padhi, ASC
(For Respondent No.1)
Mr. Gokulananda Pattnaik, Advocate
(For Proforma Respondent Nos.2 to 7)
CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
ORDER
22.12.2025
Order No.
I.A. No.224 of 2025
04 This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. This application has been filed by the Appellant for
condonation of delay.
3. As per the S.R., there is a delay of 54 days in
presenting the Memorandum of Appeal.
4. Ms. Padhi, learned Counsel for the State Respondent
No.1 admits to have received copy of the I.A. and submits,
she has no objection, if the delay is condoned.
5. Mr. Gokulananda Pattnaik, learned Counsel is
present and submits, he has already filed Vakalatnama to
represent the proforma Respondent Nos.2 to 7, but his
name is not appearing in the cause list. Mr. Pattnaik also
submits, he has no objection, if the delay is condoned.
6. Accordingly, the delay in preferring the Appeal is
condoned.
7. The I.A. stands disposed of accordingly.
(S. K. MISHRA)
JUDGE
05. 1. The present Appeal has been preferred challenging
the impugned judgment dated 30.06.2025 passed in L.A.
Case No.25 of 2019.
2. Mr. Rao, learned Counsel for the Appellant, drawing
attention of this Court to paragraph No.12 of the impugned
judgment submits, despite the admitted facts on record so
also no objection of the other applicants, who are the
proforma Respondents before this Court, the learned Court
below rejected the prayer of the Appellant/Petitioner to
pass an order to release the enhanced compensation
pertaining to the suit land in favour of the Appellant .It was
erroneously held that all the Petitioners in L.A. Case No.25
of 2019 are entitled to get enhanced compensation
pertaining to the suit land with other statutory dues, as
detailed in said order. Paragraph-12 of the said impugned
judgment, being relevant, is reproduced below:
"Now coming to the argument made by the learned
counsel for the petitioners that the deceased
petitioner had bequeathed some landed properties
including the present acquired land exclusively in
favour of the petitioner no.3 through registered
WILL vide Ext. 13 and as such the petitioner no.3
is only entitled to get the compensation in this
case. In this regard the other petitioner no. 1(a)
namely Basanta Kumar Mohapatra who is the
husband of Late Soudamini Mohapatra and the
petitioner no. 1(c) to 1(g) who are the son and
daughters of Late Soudamini Mohapatra have
been examined as PW-2 to PW-6 except the
petitioner no. 1(f) Sweta Mohapatra and
corroborated the fact of transfer of some landed
property including the present acquired land by
way of Registered WILL by the deceased petitioner
Late Soudamini Mohapatra in favour of the
petitioner no.3 and that they have no objection if
the compensation amount will be awarded solely
in favour of the petitioner no.3. On perusal of the
case record it is seen that the Form-K vide Ext.D was
prepared on dt.22.02.2018 and the reference was made
on dt. 10.07.2018 but the relevant CC Voucher
regarding receipt of compensation amount by the
deceased petitioner is not available in the case record
and also there is nothing on record with regard to the
date of receipt of compensation and also about the
person who has received the same in this case. But it is
clearly seen from the objection filed by the deceased
petitioner Late Soudamini Mohapatra vide Ext.E that
she had filed such objection petition before the OP on
dt.16.07.2018 but there is no mention about the alleged
WILL and besides that the alleged registered WILL has
been executed on dt.28.08.2017 and the ROR filed by
the petitioners vide Ext.21 which has been obtained on
dt.03.10.2023 still stands recorded in favour of Late
Soudamini Mohapatra. Furthermore, another petitioner
namely Sweta Mohapatra has neither attended before
this Authority nor gave any kind of express consent
with regard to the claim of the other petitioners in this
case and most importantly the alleged WILL has not
been proved by the petitioners as required under the
prevailing law. Hence, considering the fact and
circumstance of the case and evidence available on
record as discussed above, it is held that all the
petitioners No. 1(a) to 1(g) being the legal heirs of the
deceased petitioner Late Soudamini Mohapatra are
entitled to get the compensation in this case. Hence,
ordered."
(Emphasis supplied)
3. Mr. Rao, learned Counsel for the Appellant, relying on
the Judgment of this Court reported in 2025(I) OLR -798
(Prasanta Biswanath @ Prasanta Kumar Biswanath
Vrs. The State of Odisha) further submits, since the Will
in question is a Gadajat Will , having been executed in
Dhenkanal district , the learned Court below failed to
appreciate that the said Will need not be probated.
Accordingly, a prayer is made to set aside the impugned
judgment and direct the Respondent to release the
compensation in favour of the Appellant.
4. Mr. Pattnaik, learned Counsel for the private
Respondent Nos.2 to 7, who also represents Petitioner
No.1(f)-Sweta Mohapatra in L.A. Case No.25 of 2019, who
has been arrayed as Respondent No.6 to the present
Appeal submits, as per instruction received, his clients
have no objection to the prayer made in this Appeal.
5. Recording such concession of the learned Counsel for
the private Respondents Nos.2 to 7 , the facts on record so
also the case laws, the impugned judgment dated
30.06.2025 passed in L.A. Case No.25 of 2019 by the
learned Court below, being perverse, is partly set
aside/modified.
6. It is made clear that the enhanced compensation shall
be released in favour of the present Appellant in view of the
admitted fact on record that Will in question is a Gadajat
Will, having been executed in Dhenkanal district, which
was an ex-princely State and need not be probated .
7. Accordingly, the Respondent No.1 is directed to
release the enhanced compensation in L.A. Case No.25 of
2019 in favour of the Appellant, as prayed for.
8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the
Appeal stands allowed and disposed of.
9. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on
proper application.
10. Liberty is granted to the learned Counsel for the State
to utilize the digitally signed copy of this order, available in
the website of this Court, for the purpose of
communication of the same to the Respondent No.1 for his
information and necessary action.
Prasant (S. K. MISHRA)
JUDGE
Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR PRADHAN
Designation: Secretary
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Date: 23-Dec-2025 16:08:58
