[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
(An Application Under Articles 226 & 227 ... vs State Of Odisha on 16 January, 2026
Author: K.R. Mohapatra
Bench: K.R. Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No. 8452 of 2025
(An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India)
Prakash Chandra Swain .... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. State of Odisha, Department of
Revenue & Disaster Management,
Bhubaneswar
2. Land Acquisition Officer,
Jagatsinghpur
3. Executive Engineer, Mahanadi .... Opposite Parties
South Division, Cuttack
4. Illi Swain
5. Nirmala Charan Swain
6. Gouranga Charan Swain
.... Proforma Opposite
Parties
Advocates appeared:
For Petitioner : Ms. Namita Pattanaik, Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Mr. Siba Narayan Biswal,
Additional Standing Counsel
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heard and disposed of on : 16.01.2026
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
By the Bench:
1. Petitioner in this writ petition seeks to assail the order
dated 2nd February, 2023 (Annexure-2) passed by the learned
Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagatsinghpur in LA Misc. Case
No.318 of 2004 in a reference under Section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, 'the Act').
2. Ms. Pattanaik, learned counsel for the Petitioner
submits that Petitioner is the son of Late Nrusingha Charan
Swain, who was one of the Applicants in LA Misc. Case
No.318 of 2004. The award under Section 11 of the Act was
passed for acquisition of the land of the father of the Petitioner.
Being not satisfied, the father of the Petitioner filed an
application before the Land Acquisition Officer, Jagatsinghpur
(Opposite Party No.2) to refer the matter to the Civil Court for
enhancement of compensation under Section 18 of the Act. The
said reference was registered as LA Misc. Case No.318 of 2004
on the file of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Jagatsinghpur.
3. Section 20 of the Act mandates that the Civil Court
after receipt of the application under Section 18 of the Act,
shall issue notice to the parties to provide parties therein an
opportunity of hearing. But, in the instant case, the said
mandatory provision has not been complied with. Referring to
the details of posting of LA Misc. Case No.318 of 2004
(Annexure-1) being downloaded from the District Court
website, Ms. Pattanaik, learned counsel for the Petitioner
submits that LA Misc. Case was registered on 6th January, 2005
and thereafter the matter was adjourned to different dates for
office note. Vide order dated 19.07.2005, notices were directed
to be issued to the parties including the father of the Petitioner.
Thereafter, the matter was being adjourned awaiting SR. There
is no material on record to show that notice under Section 20 of
the Act was ever served on any of the parties to the said
reference including the father of the Petitioner. In the
meantime, the father of the Petitioner, namely, Nrusingha
Charan Swain died on 09.05.2005.
3.1. When the matter stood thus, learned Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Jagatsinghpur took up the matter on 02.02.2023 and
holding that neither the Petitioners therein nor their counsel was
present on call, proceeded to confirm the award passed under
Section 11 of the Act. While parting with the impugned order,
learned Civil Judge observed that due to unwillingness of the
Petitioners (in the reference under Section 18 of the Act), to
proceed further as well as considering heavy pendency of cases
in the said Court, it was not found just and reasonable to further
linger the matter and jumped to pass the impugned order by
confirming the award.
4. It is her submission that when a reference is made under
Section 18 of the Act, the Civil Court is obliged to answer the
reference on merit. In the instant case, a cryptic order has been
passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagatsinghpur
confirming the award under Section 11 of the Act by putting the
blame on the father of the Petitioner ignoring the fact that no
notice was served on him.
5. As no notice was either served on the father of the
Petitioner or on the Petitioner, he had no occasion to know
about the proceeding of LA Misc. Case No.318 of 2004. As
such, some delay occurred in filing the writ petition. Hence, she
prays for setting aside the impugned order at Annexure-2 and to
remit the matter to learned Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Jagatsinghpur for fresh adjudication of the reference under
Section 18 of the Act (LA Misc. Case No.318 of 2004) on merit
affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.
6. Mr. Dash, learned Additional Standing Counsel submits
that although ample opportunities were provided to the father of
the Petitioner and other co-sharers of the land acquired, they
did not avail the same. As such, neither the Applicant in the
proceeding under Section 18 of the Act nor the Petitioner was
diligent in pursuing their matter. Hence, learned Civil Judge
had no other option than to confirm the award passed under
Section 11 of the Act. As such, there is no illegality in the
impugned order.
7. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials available
on record, it appears that upon receipt of the application on
reference under Section 18 of the Act, learned Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Jagatsinghpur registered LA Misc. Case
No.318 of 2004 on his Board. Thereafter, the matter was
adjourned to different dates for office note. It is not clear from
the materials on record that learned Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Jagatsinghpur had issued any notice to the parties in
terms of Section 20 of the Act. Further, there is no material to
disclose that the notices, if any issued, were ever served on the
parties. In the meantime, father of the Petitioner, who was one
of the Applicants in the reference under Section 18 of the Act,
namely, Late Nrusingha Charan Swain, died on 09.05.2005. As
such, it is apparent that the order under Annexure-2 was passed
against a dead person, namely, Late Nrusingha Charan Swain.
Law is well-settled that order passed against a dead person is a
nullity.
7.1. Thus there is violation of the provision under Section
20 of the Act. No opportunity was provided either to the
Applicants in the petition under Section 18 of the Act or to the
Petitioner (in the writ petition) to contest the said proceeding. It
further appears that while confirming the award, learned Civil
Judge (Senior Division), Jagatsinghpur has observed as
follows:
"... ... ... Taking into account the period of long
pendency of the case, unwillingness of the petitioner
to proceed further and considering the heavy
pendency position in the current situation and also
considering the facts and circumstances of this case,
it is not found just and reasonable to further linger
the matter.
Hence, the order passed previously is
confirmed. Return the petition to the Land Acquisition
Officer, Jagatsinghpur.
Dictated & corrected.
Sd/-
Senior Civil Judge"
8. Thus, it is apparent that learned Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Jagatsinghpur has not made any endeavour to
scrutinize the material, if any available on record and pass a
reasoned order on merit. In the case of Neelagangabai and
another Vrs. State of Karnataka and others; 1990 AIR SC 1321,
State of Mizoram Vrs. Biakchhawana; 1995 SCC (1) 156 and
Rajmani Vrs. The Collector, Raipur; 1996 (5) SCC 701, it is
held that non-compliance of the provision under Section 20 of the
Act vitiates the order passed under Section 18 of the Act. Thus,
the impugned order being void ab initio, is not sustainable in
the eye of law and facts.
9. In view of the above, the impugned order under
Annexure-2 is set aside. The matter is remitted to learned Civil
Judge (Senior Division), Jagatsinghpur for de novo adjudication
of the reference under Section 18 of the Act on its own merit
providing opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. The
Petitioner is also permitted to file application for substitution of
his father along with a Legal Heir Certificate, which shall be
considered by learned Civil Judge before proceeding to
adjudicate the reference.
10. The writ petition is accordingly allowed to the aforesaid
extent. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be
no order as to costs.
11. To avoid further delay in the matter, the Petitioner shall
appear before learned Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Jagatsinghpur on 9th February, 2026 to receive further
instruction in the matter.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge
(S.K. Mishra)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated, the 16th January, 2026/Banita
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 19-Jan-2026 11:20:36
