[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Bhishma Rana vs Sub-Collector-Cum-Cala on 10 April, 2026
Author: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
Bench: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
LAA No.50 of 2026
An appeal under Section 74 of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013.
---------------
Bhishma Rana ... ... Appellant
-Versus-
Sub-Collector-cum-CALA ... ... Respondent.
For Appellant : Mr. Rajkishor Swain, Advocate
For Respondent : Prabhu Prasanna Behera, ASC
------------------
P R E S E N T:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of hearing & Judgment : 10th April, 2026
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO, J. As directed by order dated
06.04.2026, the matter has been numbered, registered as
LAA and is taken up.
2. The Memo dated 06.04.2026 filed by the learned
counsel for the appellant is handed over to the learned
counsel who is present in Court. He carries out correction
in the said Memo by mentioning the LAA number in place
of the earlier diary number, which is counter-signed by the
Court Master. The Memo is again filed and taken on record.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant was heard at some
length on 24.02.2026 and is again heard today.
The Land Acquisition Appeal has been filed invoking
the provision of section 74 of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation & Resettlement (RLFTCAR&R) Act, 2013
challenging the order dated 09.10.2025 passed by the
Collector-cum-Arbitrator, Balangir in LA (Arbitration)
Case No. 67 of 2024 (arising out of L.A. Case No.161 of
2020) under section 3(G) of the National Highway Act,
1956.
4. The Stamp Report dated 31.12.2025 indicates that
question of nomenclature/maintainability of LAA has
been pointed. Apparently, the Stamp Reporter has raised
the issue of maintainability of LAA as the challenge is to
an order by the statutory authority/Arbitrator under the
N.H.Act, 1956.
5. By order dated 24.02.2026 the following was
directed:
"The learned counsel for the petitioner as well as
the learned counsel for the State has
adjournment to address on the said issue on the
next date as the Section 3(J) of N.H.Act, 1956
provides that land acquisition Act 1 of 1894 not
to apply- Nothing in the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 shall apply to an acquisition under this Act.
The learned counsel for the petitioner shall also
address regarding applicability of the
RLFTCAR&R Act, 2013 to the acquisitions made
on the National Highway Act, 1956."
6. The learned counsel for the appellant referring to
above quoted order dated 24.02.2026 submits that he
has remedy available under the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, as provided in Section 34, to
approach the learned District Judge having jurisdiction.
It is further submitted that Stamp Report does not
reflect the details regarding the delay that would be
applicable for entertaining the appeal.
7. The fact remains that the judgment is dated
09.10.2025, the appeal was presented on 30.12.2025.
It is submitted that for the purpose of calculation of
the limitation it has to be noticed that the certified copy
of the order under challenge has been issued on
20.11.2025, pursuant to the copy application dated
04.11.2025, appeal has been filed on 30.12.2025 before
this Court; the prescribed period of limitation being
ninety days. It is submitted that even if there would be
any delay it would be only of few days.
8. It is submitted that in moving the application
before the learned District Judge under Section 34 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act the delay need be
condoned as the petitioner pursued the litigation before
this Court bona-fide and Section 14 of the Limitation Act
would come to the aid of the appellant.
9. In a recent decision, The Deputy Commissioner
and Special Land Acquisition Officer v. M/s. S.V.
Global Mill Limited1 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
dealt with a large batch of civil appeals arising out of
judgments of various High Courts, wherein the High
Courts had dismissed the First Appeal filed by the
2026 INSC 138
appellants under Section 74 of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013 as being barred
by limitation. The Apex Court has set aside all the
judgments of different High Courts and has laid down the
law regarding condonation of delay by courts in appeal in
such matters. The relied upon paragraphs-96 and 97, iv,
vii and viii are reproduced herein (from INSC print) and
are also applied in adjudicating the present matter;
"96. As repeatedly mentioned in our judgment, we
are concerned with a special law which provides
for just and fair compensation, along with the
relief of rehabilitation or resettlement. Therefore,
without discussing the decisions relied upon by
the parties any further, we only say that one must
see the exclusive mechanism provided under a
statute to be used for achieving the goal. Suffice it
is to state that after the exhaustive and
threadbare analysis of the provisions available
under both the 2013 Act and the 1963 Act, we
find that the decisions cited by the Bar do not
have any application to the present batch of
matters and therefore, deserve to be discarded.
CONCLUSION
97.We conclude as follows:
xxx xxx xxx
(iv) Section 74 of the 2013 Act does not bar the
application of Section 5 of the 1963 Act.
xxx xxx xxx
(vi) All the impugned judgments are set aside
insofar as the issue of application of Section 5 of
the 1963 Act is concerned.
xxx xxx xxx
(viii) High Courts shall avoid a pedantic approach
as against a pragmatic one in dealing with the
applications seeking condonation of delay."
[Undersigned to supply emphasis]
10. In Sesh Nath Singh and Anr. v. Baidyabati
Sheoraphuli Co-operative Bank Ltd. and Anr.2, it has
been held (paragraphs-74,75,76,77 of AIR print):
"74. As held by this Court in Commissioner, M.P.
Housing Board and Ors. v. Mohanlal & Co. Section
14 of the Limitation Act has to be interpreted
liberally to advance the cause of justice. Section
14 would be applicable in cases of mistaken
remedy or selection of a wrong forum.
75. There can be little doubt that Section 14
applies to an application Under Section 7 of the
IBC. At the cost of repetition, it is reiterated that
the IBC does not exclude the operation of Section
14 of the IBC. The question is whether prior
proceedings under the SARFAESI Act do not
qualify for the exclusion of time Under Section 14,
inasmuch as they are not civil proceedings in a
Court, as argued by Mr. Dave.
76. Even if it were to be held that the benefit of
Section 14 would be available to an applicant
under IBC, for proceedings initiated bona fide and
prosecuted with due diligence under the
SARFAESI Act, another question raised in this
appeal is, whether exclusion of time Under Section
14 of the Limitation Act, would only be available if
the proceedings which could not be entertained for
defect of jurisdiction, or other cause of a like
nature, had ended, in view of the Explanation at
the end of Section 14, which says that for the
purposes of the said Section, the day on which the
earlier proceeding was instituted and the day on
which it ended shall both be counted for exclusion
of time. Much emphasis has been placed by Mr.
Dave on the explanation at the end of Section 14,
to argue that the Financial Creditor would not be
entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the
Limitation Act since the proceedings under the
AIR 2021 SC 2637: AIROnline 2021 SC 161: (2021) 7 SCC 313: 2021 INSC 199
SARFAESI Act are still pending, as also the writ
petition in the High Court.
77. Section 14 of the Limitation Act is to be read
as a whole. A conjoint and careful reading of Sub-
sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 14 makes it
clear that an applicant who has prosecuted
another civil proceeding with due diligence, before
a forum which is unable to entertain the same on
account of defect of jurisdiction or any other cause
of like nature, is entitled to exclusion of the time
during which the applicant had been prosecuting
such proceeding, in computing the period of
limitation. The substantive provisions of Sub-
sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 14 do not say
that Section 14 can only be invoked on
termination of the earlier proceedings, prosecuted
in good faith."
[Undersigned to supply emphasis]
11. Applying the principles of law as enunciated in the
above judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is
further directed that an application being filed by present
appellant(s) under Section 34 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act before the court of appropriate
jurisdiction within a period of five weeks from uploading
of this order in the official website of this Court, the same
shall be considered by condoning the delay.
The period for five weeks is granted considering the
fact that the intending appellant/appellants come from a
remote location in the district of Bolangir. Further, the
direction issued for condonation of delay is for the fact
that the intending applicant/appellant prosecuted the
present litigation bonafidely and the present appeal
before this Court has been filed within time.
12. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands
disposed of.
The certified copies of annexures annexed to the
appeal shall be returned, upon the same being
substituted by attested photo copies.
(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The dated 10th April, 2026/Gs
