[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Gayatri Sahoo vs State Of Odisha on 20 April, 2026
Author: K.R. Mohapatra
Bench: K.R. Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 32212 OF 2025
(An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India)
*****
Gayatri Sahoo
...... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. State of Odisha, represented through
its Secretary, Revenue and Disaster
Management Department, Lok Seva
Bhawan, Bhubaneswar, Khordha.
2. Collector and District, Magistrate Nayagarh,
At/Po/Ps-Dist-Nayagarh.
3. Deputy Collector-Cum-Authorized Officer,
Nayagarh Land Acquisition Sub-Department,
At/Po/PS-Dist-Nayagarh
...... Opp. Parties
Advocates appeared:
For Petitioner : Mr. Niranjan Lenka,
Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Mr. Manmaya Kumar Dash,
(Additional Standing Counsel)
CORAM :
MR. JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
----------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 32212 OF 2025
Page 1 of 7
Heard and disposed of on 20.04.2026
----------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
By the Bench;
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. The Petitioner, in this writ petition, seeks to assail the
order dated 28.03.2025 (Annexure-10) passed by the Collector &
D.M., Nayagarh in Misc. Case No.44 of 2024, whereby the
representation of the Petitioner was rejected, which was
entertained pursuant to the direction of this Court in WP(C)
No.22731 of 2024.
3. Mr. Lenka, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits
that the Petitioner purchased the land in question from his
vendor, namely, Rajkishore Nayak, by virtue of a registered sale
deed dated 11.05.2012 (Annexure-3) and was exercising his
right, title and interest thereon from the date of purchase being in
possession thereof. Subsequently, the land in question was
acquired by the State Government for expansion of National
Highway-57 pursuant to the notification dated 31.06.2023 under
Annexure-5. The same was published in Odia daily newspaper
Prameya on 9th September, 2023.
4. Thus, the Petitioner raised a claim for grant of
compensation for acquisition of his land. It is further submitted
by Mr. Lenka, learned counsel that before the acquisition of the
land, the vendor of the Petitioner, namely Rajkishore Nayak had
filed Civil Suit No.12 of 1994 in the Court of learned Additional
W.P.(C) No.32212 OF 2025
Civil Judge (Junior Division), Daspalla. An ex parte decree was
passed in favour of the vendor of the Petitioner on 05.08.1997
declaring his right, title, and interest thereon.
5. The petition filed by the State of Odisha under Order IX
Rule 13 CPC was initially dismissed. However, subsequently
pursuant to the direction of this Court, the said application was
entertained afresh and the ex parte decree was set aside. The suit
was entertained by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division),
Nayagarh and came to be dismissed on 26.12.2024.
6. Assailing the same, the vendor of the Petitioner has filed
RFA No.8 of 2025, which is pending before learned District
Judge, Nayagarh for adjudication. At this juncture, the land
purchased by the Petitioner, along with the other properties of the
vendor was acquired. The Petitioner, being dissatisfied with the
award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, filed a
representation for just compensation, which was not entertained
by the Collector, Nayagarh.
7. Accordingly, the Petitioner moved this Court in WP(C)
No.22731 of 2024, which was disposed of vide order dated
23.09.2024 (Annexure-8) with a direction to the Collector to take
a decision on the representation of the Petitioner. Pursuant to the
direction of this Court, the Collector initiated Misc. Case No.44
of 2024 on his file and held that the land in question being
recorded in the name of the State Government, the Petitioner is
not entitled to any compensation.
W.P.(C) No.32212 OF 2025
8. Mr. Lenka, learned Counsel for the Petitioner further
submits that the Collector had no power to adjudicate upon the
entitlement of the Petitioner after the award under the Right to
Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for brevity, 'the Act')
was passed.
9. The Collector, Nayagarh entertaining such representation
of the Petitioner should have referred the matter to the Authority
for adjudication. Further, First Appeal filed by the vendor of the
Petitioner in respect of the entire land, including the land
purchased by the Petitioner, is pending before the learned District
Judge, Nayagarh for adjudication.
10. In a similar situation, the vendor of the Petitioner,
namely Rajkishore Nayak had preferred WP(C) No.32476 of
2025, which was disposed of vide order dated 23.12.2025
granting liberty to the Petitioner therein (the vendor of the
Petitioner) to move the Collector for redressal of his grievances
by filing an application under Section 64 of the Act.
11. Hence, Mr. Lenka, learned counsel for the Petitioner
submits that the impugned order under Annexure-10 should be
set aside and the Collector, Nayagarh should be directed to refer
the matter to the authority for adjudication.
12. Mr. Dash, learned Additional Standing Counsel
vehemently objects to the same and submits that the Petitioner
has no locus standi to move an application under Section 64 of
W.P.(C) No.32212 OF 2025
the Act, as the suit filed by vendor in respect of the land in
question had already been dismissed on merit vide judgment
dated 26.12.2024. The land in question, at present, stands
recorded in the name of the State Government. Thus, the
Petitioner, has no locus standi to file any application under
Section 64 of the Act, as there is no award in his favour granting
compensation.
13. It is further submitted that when, prima facie, the
Petitioner does not have any right, title, or interest over the land
acquired, no petition under Section 64 of the Act would be
maintainable. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ
petition.
14. Taking note of the submissions made by learned counsel
for the parties, and on perusal of the record, this Court finds that
there is no dispute with regard to factual position. The only issue
which requires consideration is whether the Collector, Nayagarh,
while entertaining the application of the Petitioner for higher
compensation could have adjudicated the right, tittle, and interest
in respect of the Petitioner while adjudicating the matter for just
compensation.
15. Mr. Lenka, learned counsel for the Petitioner, however,
submits that no compensation has been awarded in favour of the
Petitioner, but in the land acquisition proceeding, an award has
been passed in respect of the said land. Section 64 (1) of the Act
clearly stipulates that if any person interested, has not accepted
W.P.(C) No.32212 OF 2025
the award may by a written application under Section 64 of the
Act apply for just compensation and in that event, the Collector
shall refer the matter to the Authority for adjudication.
16. A close reading of Section 64 of the Act does not leave
any scope for adjudication of disputes with regard to right, title,
or interest of a party by the Collector while entertaining an
application under the said provision. If there is an award (with or
without compensation), any person interested, who has not
accepted the same, may file a written application under Section
64 of the Act, and in that event, the Collector shall refer the
matter to the Authority. But in the instant case, the Collector,
Nayagarh, while entertaining Misc. Case No.44 of 2024, vide
order dated 28.03.2025 (Annexure-10), proceeded to adjudicate
the matter on merit, which is not permissible.
17. On perusal of the record, it appears that the
representation of the Petitioner was not in terms of Section 64 of
the Act.
18. Thus, it is directed that, in the event the Petitioner files
an application under Section 64 of the Act within a period of two
weeks hence, the same shall be considered in accordance with
law, giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned
without being influenced by the observations made in the order
dated 28.03.2025 (Annexure-10) passed by the Collector &
D.M., Nayagarh in Misc. Case No.44 of 2024. If the application
of the Petitioner, if any, filed within the stipulated period as
W.P.(C) No.32212 OF 2025
aforesaid, satisfies the conditions mentioned in Section 64 of the
Act, the matter shall be referred to the Authority for adjudication.
19. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. In the facts
and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
Urgent certified copy shall be granted as per Rules.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge
(S.K. Mishra)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated 20th April, 2026/Mona
W.P.(C) No.32212 OF 2025
