Dhruba Charan Sahoo And Another vs State Of Odisha on 4 February, 2026

Author: K.R. Mohapatra

Bench: K.R. Mohapatra

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                      W.P.(C) No. 33633 OF 2025

    (An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India)

                                       *****

      Dhruba Charan Sahoo and another ......                                Petitioners
                                      -Versus-

       1. State of Odisha, represented through
          its Principal Secretary, Revenue and Disaster
           Management, Secretariate, Bhubaneswar
      2. Zone Officer/L.A. Collector, Zone-III,
          Rengali Right Canal System, Dhenkanal
                                            ......    Opp. Parties
       Advocates appeared:
              For Petitioners        : Mr. Abinash Routrary, Advocate
            For Opp. Parties         : Mr. Swayambhu Mishra,
                                       Additional Standing Counsel
              CORAM :
              MR. JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
              & MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
                ----------------------------------------------------
                  Heard and disposed of on 04.02.2026
                 ----------------------------------------------------
                                  JUDGMENT

By the Bench;

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. This is an application for amendment of the writ petition.

3. Mr. Routray, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that inadvertently the Petitioners could not incorporate the prayer to set aside the order under Annexure-5 in the prayer portion. Hence, the petition for amendment has been filed to amend the prayer of the writ petition to that extent.

W.P.(C) No. 33633 OF 2025

3.1. Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel does not have any objection to the said prayer for amendment.

3.2. Hence, the prayer for amendment is allowed.

3.3. Mr. Routrary, learned counsel for the Petitioners files consolidated writ petition incorporating the proposed amendment in the court today serving copy thereof on the learned counsel for the State.

3.4. Consolidated writ petition is taken on record.

3.5. Registry is directed to place the consolidated writ petition appropriately in the brief.

4. I.A. is disposed of accordingly.

[[

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

(S.K. Mishra) Judge

W.P.(C) No. 33633 OF 2025

1. As requested by learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

2. Petitioners in this writ petition seeks to assail the order dated 21st March, 2025 (Annexure-5) passed by the Land Acquisition Collector-cum-Zone Officer, Zone-III, Rengali Right Canal System, Dhenkanal (for brevity, 'L.A. Collector'), in rejecting an application filed by the Petitioners under Section 73 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land

W.P.(C) No. 33633 OF 2025

Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for brevity, 'the Act') to re-determine the compensation.

3. Mr. Routray, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that pursuant to a notification under Section 11(1) of the Act, Plot No.2133 of Khata No.291 to an extent of Ac. 0.130 dec. in Mouza-Mahisapat, Dist.- Dhenkanal (for brevity, 'the case land') recorded in the name of the Petitioners was acquired for construction of Rengali Right Canal System. L.A. Case No.23 of 2015 was initiated and the Petitioners were awarded compensation of Rs.3,78,429.00 (three lakh seventy-eight thousand four hundred twenty-nine only) for acquisition of the case land. Being not satisfied, one Santosh Kumar Rath, whose land was acquired under the same notification, filed an application under Section 64 of the Act and the said matter was referred to the Authority for enhancement of compensation. The LAR&R Authority (Northern Division), Sambalpur, vide his order dated 24th December, 2020 (Annexure-2), enhanced the compensation.

3.1. Accordingly, the Petitioners instead of availing the remedy under Section 64 of the Act, filed an application under Section 73 of the Act before the L.A. Collector for redetermination of compensation, as the case land was acquired under the same notification. The said application was registered as L.A. Misc. Case No.8 of 2025. The Land Acquisition Collector, under a misconception that the petition under Section 73 of the Act was filed beyond the statutory period of three months, rejected the said application vide order dated 21st W.P.(C) No. 33633 OF 2025

March, 2025 (Annexure-5). Hence, this writ petition has been filed.

4. Mr. Routray, learned counsel for the Petitioners relies upon the guidelines set out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in suo motu Writ Petition(C) No.3 of 2020 (IN RE: COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION) and submits that in cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15th March, 2020 till 28th February, 2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 1st March, 2022. In the event, the actual balance period of limitation remaining, w.e.f. 1st March, 2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply. He, therefore, submits that the application of the Petitioners under Section 73 of the Act, which was filed on 8th March, 2022 should not have been rejected on the ground of limitation. For better appreciation, Paragraph No.5 (III) of the IN RE: COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION (supra) is quoted hereunder:

"5. XXX XXX XXX III. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply."

W.P.(C) No. 33633 OF 2025

5. Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel submits that the matter is required to be examined by the L.A. Collector afresh keeping in mind the ratio in IN RE:

COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION (supra) and a decision is required to be taken afresh.

6. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, this Court is of the considered opinion that an application under Section 73 of the Act should have been filed within three months from the date of award basing upon which the claimant makes a prayer for redetermination of compensation. In the case of Santosh Kumar Rath, relying upon which the Petitioners filed application under Section 73 of the Act, the award by the LAR&R Authority (Northern Division), Sambalpur was passed on 24th December, 2020. Hence, the petition under Section 73 of the Act should have been filed by 23rd March, 2021, but, the application under Section 73 of the Act was filed by the Petitioners on 8th March, 2022. Thus, admittedly, the petition under Section 73 of the Act was filed beyond the statutory period of three months.

6.1 However, taking into consideration the guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in IN RE: COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION (supra), the period from 15th March, 2020 till the date of filing of petition under Section 73 of the Act should have been excluded from the statutory period of limitation. The L.A. Collector failed to appreciate the same and rejected the petition on the ground of limitation.

W.P.(C) No. 33633 OF 2025

7. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 21 st March, 2025 (Annexure-5) passed by the L.A. Collector in L.A. Misc. Case No.8 of 2025 is not sustainable and is accordingly set aside. The matter is remitted to the L.A. Collector to consider the case of the Petitioners afresh keeping in the mind the ratio in IN RE: COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION (supra) and proceed with the matter in accordance with law giving opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case of the Petitioner in the application under Section 73 of the Act.

8. It is expected that the L.A. Collector shall do well to consider the matter expeditiously.

9. The Petitioners shall also cooperate with the L.A. Collector for early consideration of the application.

10. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

Urgent certified copy of this judgment be granted on proper application.

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

(S.K. Mishra) Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated 4th February, 2026/Kanhu

W.P.(C) No. 33633 OF 2025

Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 06-Feb-2026 19:43:06