Orissa High Court
Tansukha Rai Agarwal (Since Dead) vs State Of Odisha And Others ... Opposite ... on 24 September, 2025
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
C.R.P. No.34 of 2013
Applications under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908
***
Tansukha Rai Agarwal (since dead) ... Petitioners
through his LRs
-VERSUS-
State of Odisha and others ... Opposite Parties
C.R.P. No. 35 of 2013
Tansukha Rai Agarwal (since dead) ... Petitioners
through his LRs
-VERSUS-
State of Odisha and others ... Opposite Parties
Counsel appeared for the parties:
For the Petitioners : Mr. G.N.Mishra,Advocate
For the Opposite Parties : Mr.U.C.Mishra, Advocate
Mr.A.Pattnaik,Advocate
(for the O.P. Nos.3 and 4)
Mr.B.Bhuyan, Sr.Advocate
Mr.S.S.Bhuyan, Advocate
(for the O.P. Nos.5(a) to 5(c))
Mr.K.K. Mishra, Advocate
(for the O.P. Nos.7(a) to 7(c))
Mr.P.K.Mohapatra (for the O.P. No.9)
Mr.S.K. Dash, Advocate
(for O.P. Nos.6 and 8)
Mr.G.Mohanty S.C.
(for the O.P. Nos.1 and 2)
P R E S E N T:
HONOURABLE
MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA
Date of Hearing: 03.09.2025 :: Date of Judgment : 24.09.2025
J UDGMENT
ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.--
1. Since, both the revisions under Section 115 of the C.P.C.,
1908 have been filed by the Petitioners challenging one order i.e.
an order dated 19.11.2013 passed in Misc. Case No.4 of 2013 by
the Land Acquisition Officer, Angul (O.P. No.2), then, both the
revisions have been taken up together analogously for their final
disposal through this common judgment.
2. The factual back grounds of these revisions, which
prompted the Petitioners for filing of the same is that, the
properties covered under Hal Khata Nos.259 and 64 in Mouza
Nandichhod @ Gopiballavpur corresponding to Sabik Khata
No.161/6 and 90 were acquired by the State Government as per
notification dated 19.01.2008 for M/s. Tata Sponge Iron Limited.
3. When, during the course of land acquisition proceedings,
compensation amount of the above acquired properties was
passed in favour of the O.P. Nos.3 to 5 by the Land Acquisition
Officer, Angul (O.P. No.2), then, the Petitioners filed application
under Sections 10, 18 and 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
before the O.P. No.2 claiming their shares in the compensation
amounts of the said acquired properties on the ground that, they
are the persons interested in the said acquired properties having
their interest in the same and prayed before the O.P. No.2 to refer
the said dispute to the Civil Court for apportionments as well as
enhancement of the compensation amount, but, the O.P. No.2
rejected their application.
For which, they (Petitioners) challenged the same filing a
writ petition vide W.P.(C) No.6645 of 2011 before the High Court
of Orissa. As per the judgment dated 16.05.2011 passed in
W.P.(C) No.6645 of 2011, the High Court set aside to the order
passed by the O.P. No.2 refusing to refer the matter to the Civil
Court and directed to deposit the compensation amount of the
acquired properties in the Bank without disbursing the same to
the O.P. Nos.3 to 5 till the proper apportionments are made by
the Civil Court through reference.
Thereafter, the O.P. Nos.3 to 5 filed a review petition bearing
No.125 of 2011 praying for reviewing the above order dated
16.05.2011 passed in W.P.(C) No.6645 of 2011. That review
petition No.125 of 2011 was disposed of on dated 27.10.2011 by
the High Court modifying the order dated 16.05.2011 to a little
extent directing the O.P. No.2 to deposit the awarded
compensation amount in any one of the Nationalized Banks and
the objection of the Petitioners shall be decided by the O.P. No.2
and the deposited compensation amount shall not be withdrawn
by the O.P. Nos.3 to 5 till then.
Thereafter, the O.P. Nos.3 to 5 approached the Hon'ble
Supreme Court by filing Civil Appeal No.918 of 2013 challenging
the order of the High Court. That, Civil Appeal No.918 of 2013
was disposed of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on dated
01.02.2013 directing the O.P. No.2 to reconsider the objections of
the Petitioners under Sections 10 and 18 read with Section 30 of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and to decide the same through a
speaking order within a maximum period of three months from
the date of receipt/production of the copy of the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Thereafter, on the basis of the aforesaid directions made by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court as per judgment dated 01.02.2013
passed in Civil Appeal No.918 of 2013, the Land Acquisition
Officer, Angul (O.P. No.2) initiated Misc. Case No.4 of 2013 for
reconsideration of the objection under Sections 10 and 18 read
with Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 of the
Petitioners relating to their prayer for referring the matter to the
Civil Court and provided opportunity of being heard to the
Parties.
4. After hearing from both the sides, the O.P. No.2 disposed of
the said Misc. Case No.04 of 2013 finally on dated 19.11.2013
rejecting the objection of the Petitioners assigning the reasons
that,
"the Petitioners have no interest in the
acquired properties, for which, the prayer of the
Petitioners in their objection to refer the matter to
the Civil Court under Sections 10 and 18 read with
Section 30 of the L.A. Act, 1894 rejected".
5. On being aggrieved with the said order of rejection to the
objection under Sections 10 and 18 read with Section 30 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 of the Petitioners passed by the O.P.
No.2, the Petitioners challenged the same by filing this revision
under Section 115 of the C.P.C., 1908 being the Petitioners
against the O.P. Nos.3 to 5 arraying the O.P. Nos.6 to 9 as
proforma O.P.s and also arraying the State of Orissa and Land
Acquisition Officer-cum-Special Land Acquisition Officer, Angul
as O.P. Nos.1 and 2 respectively.
6. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the
Petitioners, the learned counsels for the O.P. Nos.3 and 4, O.P.
Nos.5(a) to 5(c), O.P. Nos.6 and 8, O.P. Nos.7(a) to 7(c), O.P. No.9
and the learned standing counsel for the O.P. Nos.1 and 2.
7. In order to assail the impugned order dated 19.11.2013, the
learned counsel for the Petitioners relied upon the decision
between Narayan Das Vrs. Kasinath Pani and others decided
in Civil Revision No.25 of 1965 on dated 12.12.1967.
On the contrary in support of the impugned order, the
learned counsel for the O.P. No.5 relied upon the following
decisions:-
(i) Sharda Devi Vrs. State of Bihar and another
reported in (2003) 3 SCC 128.
(ii) Sayed Mohd. Shah Abdul Hamid Kadri Vrs. State
of Maharashtra and another reported in 2005 (4)
Mh.L.J. 1060.
8. In the objection of the Petitioners under Sections 10 and 18
read with Section 30 of the L.A. Act, 1894 before the O.P. No.2,
the Petitioners had claimed their share in the awarded
compensation of the acquired properties stating that, Khubiram
Agarwal was the common ancestor of the Petitioners and O.P.
Nos.3 to 9. The acquired properties along with other properties
were their ancestral properties, those were devolved upon them
from Khubiram Agarwal. The acquired properties are the joint
and undivided properties of the Petitioners and O.P. Nos.3 to 9.
There was a registered deed of partition on dated 30.05.1963 in
respect of their some joint properties between them, but, the
acquired properties were kept out of that registered partition deed
to be partitioned later on. So, the acquired properties have not
been partitioned between them (Petitioners and O.P. Nos.3 to 9)
through any metes and bounds partition as yet.
Therefore, the Petitioners and the O.P. Nos.3 to 9 have their
shares in the compensation of the acquired properties. For which,
the Petitioners are entitled to get their shares from the
compensation amount of the acquired properties.
To which, the O.P. Nos.3 to 5 objected stating that, the
R.o.Rs of the acquired properties stand in the name of
Gourishankar Agarwal vide Hal Khata No.64 and Santosh Kumar
Agarwal vide Hal Khata No.259 and both the Khatas corresponds
to Sabik Khata No.161/6 and 90 and the said properties were the
self-acquired properties of their predecessors i.e. Gourishankar
Agarwal and Sontosh Kumar Agarwal, in which, the Petitioners
have no interest on the basis of the unchallenged R.o.Rs of the
Sabik and Hal settlement in their favour.
After taking into account the claim of the Petitioners,
objection of the O.P. Nos.3 to 5 and the documents relied by both
the sides in respect of the title of the acquired properties, it was
held by the Land Acquisition Officer, Angul (O.P. No.2) in the
impugned order dated 19.11.2013 (Annexure-1) that,
"the Petitioners have not been able to establish their
prima facie title or interest in respect of the acquired
properties in their favour. For which, the case of the
Petitioners before him (O.P. No.2) is not covered under
Sections 10 and 18 read with Section 30 of the LA Act,
1894 for its reference to the Civil Court. Therefore, the
Land Acquisition Officer, Angul (O.P. No.2) rejected to the
prayer of the Petitioners for referring the matter to the Civil
Court".
9. Now, the question arises, whether these revisions under
Section 115 of the C.P.C., 1908 filed by the Petitioners
challenging the order of rejection to their application for referring
the matter under Sections 10 and 18 read with Section 30 of the
L.A. Act, 1894 to the Civil Court for adjudication are
maintainable under law?
On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been
clarified in the ratio of the following decision:-
In a case between M.Santama Vrs. State of Orissa
and another reported in 2003 (I) OLR 540 in Para
No.4 that,
application for reference under Section 18 of
the Land Acquisition Act when rejected by the Land
Acquisition Officer, then, against such order, revision
under Section 115 of the CPC maintainable.
10. So, in view of the propositions of law enunciated in the ratio
of the aforesaid decision, it cannot be held that, the revisions filed
by the Petitioners challenging the order of rejection to the
application under Sections 10 and 18 read with Section 30 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 passed by the Land Acquisition
Officer (O.P. No.2) in Misc. Case No.4 of 2013 are not
maintainable under law. For which, in other words, it is held
that, these revisions filed by the Petitioners are maintainable
(entertainable) under law for adjudication.
11. The law concerning the scope, power and jurisdiction of the
L.A. Collector like the O.P. No.2 for referring a matter under
Sections 30 and 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 relating to
apportionments and enhancement of the compensation amount
has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:-
(i) In a case between Bidyadhar Mahalik
Vrs. Land Acquisition Officer, Kalahandi
reported in 111 (2011) CLT 764 in Para No.13
that,
right of land looser, which is not only a
constitutional right guaranteed to the citizen, but,
also a human right as held by the Supreme Court.
If, the award is not satisfactory, the land looser have
got every right to file a petition under Section 18 of
the L.A. Act, 1894 to make reference to the
appropriate Court for proper adjudication and
consideration of the matter on the basis of the market
value.
(ii) In a case between G.H.Grant Vrs. State of
Bihar reported in AIR 1966 (SC) 237 in Para No.19
that,
The Land Acquisition Collector is not authorized
to decide finally the conflicting rights of the persons
interested in the amount of compensation. He is
primarily concerned with the acquisition of the land.
The dispute relating to the conflicting rights of the
Parties in the acquired properties as to be decided
either in a reference under Section 18 or 30 of the
L.A. Act, 1894 or in a separate suit.
(iii) In a case between Sri Prasada Rao
Mikkilineni and others Vrs. State of A.P. and
others reported in 2000 (4) CCC (SC) 28 in
Para No.4 that,
when, there is dispute about title as also
computation of appropriate compensation exist,
in that case Land Acquisition officer is directed to
make a reference to Appropriate Court.
(iv) In a case between Sri Narasingha Jena
Vrs. State of Orissa reported in (93) 2002 CLT
once dispute arises with regard to
apportionment, Land Acquisition Officer is obliged
to make a reference under Section 30 of the LA Act,
1894. He has no jurisdiction to enquire into the title
and give a binding decision, which only a Civil Court
could do. Therefore, the Land Acquisition Officer in
the event of dispute being raised has no jurisdiction
to decide the question of title and is obliged to
make a reference to the civil Court for adjudication.
Since, the Land Acquisition Officer has no jurisdiction
to decide the question of title, it is not necessary for
him to refer to the documents to find out the title in
respect of any claim.
(v) In a case between Neelagangavva Vrs.
Basayya (deceased) by LRs. and another
reported in II (2005) Civil Law Times 69
(Karnataka) in Para Nos.7 and 8 that,
When dispute arising after award filing of
award, it is open to appellant to seek reference
under Section 30 of the L.A. Act, 1894 or to institute
appropriate proceeding to claim her share in
compensation awarded by reference Court on the
ground that, she is also entitled for share in
properties.
(vi) In a case between Bighnaraj Sai Vrs.
Special Land Acquisition Officer, Lower Suktel
Irrigation Project, Bolangir and others reported
in 2007 (I) OLR 44 in Para No.12 that,
a person, who has right in acquired property
has a locus standi to make an application under
Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for
reference of dispute.
12. In the ratio of the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Courts
and Apex Court, the propositions of law has already been clarified
that, a person, who has right or interest in the acquired land has
locus standi to make an application for reference of the dispute
as per Section 30 and 18 of the LA Act, 1894 to the Civil Court.
The law has also further been clarified in the ratio of the
above decisions that, once a dispute arises with regard to the
apportionment and enhancement of the compensation amount,
the Land Acquisition Officer is duty bound to make a reference to
the said matter to the Civil Court for its adjudication, but, the
Land Acquisition Officer has no jurisdiction to enquire into the
title of the properties referring to the documents and to give a
finding relating to the title of the Parties in respect of the said
acquired properties like a Civil Court.
For which, in the event of a dispute being raised concerning
the apportionment and enhancement of the awarded
compensation amount of the acquired properties, the Land
Acquisition Officer like the O.P. No.2 in these revisions at hand
has no jurisdiction to decide the disputed question of title of the
acquired properties, but, to make a reference to the Civil Court
for adjudication. Because, the Land Acquisition Officer has no
authority or jurisdiction under law to decide the disputed
question of title of the acquired properties and the Land
Acquisition Officer has no power under law to give a finding in
respect of the disputed title of the acquired properties referring
the documents.
13. Here in these matters at hand, when, there is serious
dispute between the Petitioners, O.P. Nos.6 to 9 and O.P. Nos.3 to
5 relating to the title as well as compensation amount of the
acquired properties, then at this juncture, there was no other
alternative for the Land Acquisition Officer, Angul (O.P. No.2) ,
but, to refer the said disputed matters between the Parties as per
Section 30, 18 read with Section 10 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 to the Civil Court for its proper adjudication.
For which, the impugned order i.e. to the rejection of the
application of the Petitioners for referring the matter under
Section 10 and 18 read with Section 30 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 passed on dated 19.11.2013 (Annexure-1) in Misc.
Case No.4 of 2013 by the Land Acquisition Officer, Angul (O.P.
No.2) held as not in inconformity with law.
Therefore, the said impugned order dated 19.11.2013
(Annexure-1) passed in Misc. Case No.4 of 2013 by the O.P. No.2
cannot be sustainable under law.
14. As such, there is justification under law for making
interference with the impugned order dated 19.11.2013
(Annexure-1) passed in Misc. Case No.4 of 2013 by the Land
Acquisition Officer-cum-Special Land Acquisition Officer, Angul
(O.P. No.2) through these revisions filed by the Petitioners.
15. Therefore, there is merit in the revisions filed by the
Petitioners. The same must succeed.
16. In result, both the revisions filed by the Petitioner are
allowed on contest.
17. The impugned order dated 19.11.2013 (Annexure-1) passed
in Misc. Case No.4 of 2013 by the Land Acquisition Officer-cum-
Special Land Acquisition Officer, Angul (O.P. No.2) is set aside.
18. The Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Special Land Acquisition
Officer, Angul (O.P. No.2) is directed to refer the matters of
dispute between the Parties concerning the apportionment and
enhancement of the awarded compensation amount as per
Section 30 and 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the local
jurisdictional Civil Court for its proper adjudication as per law
and the Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Special Land Acquisition
Officer, Angul (O.P. No.2) shall disburse the compensation
amount only on the basis of the decisions made by the Civil
Court.
19. Registry is directed to communicate the copy of this
judgment to the Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Special Land
Acquisition Officer, Angul (O.P. No.2) immediately.
20. As such, both the revisions filed by the Petitioners are
disposed of finally.
(ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA)
High SAHOO
Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Reason: Authentication
24.09.2025// Binayak Sahoo
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Jr. Stenographer
Date: 25-Sep-2025 17:43:56
