Orissa High Court
Angul Sukinda Railway Limited vs State Of Odisha on 8 September, 2025
Bench: K.R. Mohapatra, Savitri Ratho
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No. 24275 of 2025
Angul Sukinda Railway Limited, .... Petitioner
Khordha
Mr. Prabin Das, Advocate
-versus-
1. State of Odisha
2. Special Land Acquisition
Officer, Angul
3. Ministry of Railway, Union of
India
4. Balakrushna Mallik
5. Sugriba Mallik
6. Agari Mallik .... Opposite Parties
Mr. Sabita Ranjan Pattanaik,
Additional Government Advocate
Mr. Rupesh Kumar Kanungo, Senior Panel Counsel
(for Opposite Party No.3)
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
ORDER
Order No. 08.09.2025
01. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Petitioner in this writ petition seeks to assail the judgment
dated 15th May, 2023 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge,
Kamakhyanagar in LA Misc. Case No. 172 of 2021.
3. Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner
submits that the Petitioner being a beneficiary of land acquisition
and a person interested was not served with any notice before
passing of the award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (for brevity 'the Act') or during adjudication of the reference
under Section 18 of the Act being L.A. Misc. Case No. 172 of
2021. It is his submission that by virtue of the impugned judgment
under Annexure-1, the award passed under Section 11 of the Act
was enhanced unreasonably. Hence, the Petitioner has a say in the
matter.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner
that this case may be disposed of in the light of order dated 18th
June, 2024 passed in WP(C) No. 13949 of 2024 (Angul Sukinda
Railway Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. State of Odisha and others),
relevant paragraphs of which are quoted hereunder;
"6. A statutory appeal under Section 54 of the
Act lies against an award under Section 18 of the Act,
but at the same time, a writ petition is maintainable
under Article 226 of the Constitution against
determination of the amount of compensation by the
Land Acquisition Collector or by the Reference Court
as held in U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad vs. Gyan
Devi (Dead) by L.Rs. and Ors., AIR 1995 SC 725 and
in Gregory Patrao and others vs. Mangalore Refinery
and Petrochemicals Limited and others; (2022) 10
SCC 461. In the instant case, the petitioner is entitled to
an opportunity of hearing for just adjudication of the
reference under Section 18 of the Act.
7. In that view of the matter without delving into
technicalities with regard to maintainability of the writ
petition, we set aside the impugned award under
Annexure-1 and remit the matter to the learned Senior
Civil Judge, Kamakhyanagar for de novo adjudication
of the L.A. Misc. Case No.184 of 2021 giving an
opportunity of hearing to the parties including the
petitioner. It is further directed that the learned Senior
Civil Judge, Kamakhyanagar shall do well to
adjudicate the reference afresh as expeditiously as
possible, preferably within a period of six months from
the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
8. Parties are directed to cooperate for early disposal
of the reference.
9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, Writ
Petition is disposed of."
5. He further submits that although the order passed under
section 18 of the Act is appealable under Section 54 of the Act, but
a writ petition is maintainable as held in the aforesaid order relying
upon the decision in the cases of U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad
vs. Gyan Devi (Dead) By L.Rs. And Ors.: AIR 1995 SC 725 and
Gregory Patrao and others vs. Mangalore Refinery and
Petrochemicals Limited and others; (2022) 10 SCC 461.
6. He therefore, prays for setting aside the impugned judgment
under Annexure-1 and to remit the matter to the learned Civil
Judge, Senior Division, Kamakhyanagar for fresh adjudication of
the reference under Section 18 of the Act, i.e. L.A. Misc. Case No.
172 of 2021 providing opportunity of hearing to the parties
concerned including the Petitioner.
7. Mr. Pattnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate
submits that the ratio in the case of Angul Sukinda Railway Ltd.,
Bhubaneswar (supra) is squarely applicable to the instant case.
8. In view of the order proposed to be passed, this Court
dispensing with service of notice on the private Opposite Parties
proceeds to adjudicate the writ petition.
9. In that view of the matter, this Court without delving further
into the contentions raised by learned counsel for the Parties on
merit of Judgment under Amnnexure-1, disposes of the writ
petition in the light of the decision in the case of Angul Sukinda
Railway Ltd., Bhubaneswar (supra).
10. As the Petitioner is the beneficiary of land acquisition and a
person interested and was not provided with any opportunity of
hearing during adjudication of the reference under Section 18 of the
Act, the impugned judgment under Annexure-1 is set aside and the
matter is remitted to learned Civil Judge, Senior Division,
Kamakhyanagar to adjudicate LA. Misc. Case No. 172 of 2021
(under Section 18 of the Act), as expeditiously as possible,
preferably within a period of six months from the date of service of
notice on the parties, providing opportunity of hearing to the parties
concerned, including the Petitioner.
11. Learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kamakhyanagar shall
act upon production of certified copy of this order.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge
(Savitri Ratho)
Judge
RKS
