[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Angul Sukinda Railway Limited vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opp. ... on 27 January, 2026
Author: K.R. Mohapatra
Bench: K.R. Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) NO.330 OF 2026
Angul Sukinda Railway Limited, Khordha .... Petitioner
Mr. Prabin Das, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & others .... Opp. Parties
Mr. Swayambhu Mishra,
Additional Standing Counsel
Mr. Prasanna Kumar Parhi,
(Deputy Solicitor General of India)
Along with Mr. Deepak Gochhayat,
(Central Government Counsel)
(For Union of India)
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
ORDER
Order No. 27.01.2026
02. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Appearance memo of Mr. Prasanna Kumar Parhi, Deputy
Solicitor General of India along with Mr. Deepak Gochhayat,
Central Government Counsel is taken on record.
3. The Petitioner in this writ petition seeks to assail the
judgment dated 23rd June, 2025 (Annexure-2) passed by learned
Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jajpur Road, Jajpur in L.A.R. Case
No.05 of 2014.
4. Mr. Das, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that
the Petitioner being a beneficiary of land acquisition and a person
interested was not served with any notice before passing of the
award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for
brevity "the Act") or during adjudication of the reference under
Section 18 of the Act being L.A.R. Case No. 05 of 2014. It is his
submission that by virtue of the impugned judgment under
Annexure-2, the award passed under Section 11 of the Act was
enhanced unreasonably. Hence, the Petitioner has a say in the
matter. It is, however, submitted that the judgment passed in
L.A.R. Case No. 05 of 2014 was not challenged in appeal under
Section 54 of the Act by either parties to the said reference.
5. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the
Petitioner that this case may be disposed of in the light of order
dated 18th June, 2024 passed in W.P.(C) No.13949 of 2024
(Angul Sukinda Railway Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. State of Odisha
and others), relevant paragraphs of which are quoted hereunder;
"6. A statutory appeal under Section 54 of
the Act lies against an award under Section 18 of the
Act, but at the same time, a writ petition is
maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution
against determination of the amount of
compensation by the Land Acquisition Collector or
by the Reference Court as held in U.P. Awas Evam
Vikas Parishad vs. Gyan Devi (Dead) by L.Rs. and
Ors., AIR 1995 SC 725 and in Gregory Patrao and
others vs. Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals
Limited and others; (2022) 10 SCC 461. In the
instant case, the petitioner is entitled to an
opportunity of hearing for just adjudication of the
reference under Section 18 of the Act.
7. In that view of the matter without delving into
technicalities with regard to maintainability of the
writ petition, we set aside the impugned award
under Annexure-1 and remit the matter to the
learned Senior Civil Judge, Kamakhyanagar for de
novo adjudication of the L.A. Misc. Case No.184 of
2021 giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties
including the petitioner. It is further directed that the
learned Senior Civil Judge, Kamakhyanagar shall
do well to adjudicate the reference afresh as
expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period
of six months from the date of receipt of certified
copy of the order.
8. Parties are directed to cooperate for early
disposal of the reference.
9. With the aforesaid observation and direction,
Writ Petition is disposed of."
6. He further submits that although the judgment passed
under Section 18 of the Act is appealable under Section 54 of the
Act, but a writ petition is maintainable as held in the aforesaid
order relying upon the decision in the cases of U.P. Awas Evam
Vikas Parishad vs. Gyan Devi (Dead) By L.Rs. And Ors.: AIR
1995 SC 725 and Gregory Patrao and others vs. Mangalore
Refinery and Petrochemicals Limited and others; (2022) 10 SCC
461. It is his submission that no appeal against the order under
Section 54 of the Act has been filed against the Judgment dated
23rd June, 2025 (Annexure-2) which is impugned herein.
7. He, therefore, prays for setting aside the impugned
judgment under Annexure-2 and to remit the matter to the learned
Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jajpur Road, Jajpur for fresh
adjudication of the reference under Section 18 of the Act, i.e.
L.A.R. Case No.05 of 2014 providing opportunity of hearing to
the parties concerned including the Petitioner.
8. Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel submits
that the issue involved in this case has already been answered in
W.P.(C) No. 13949 of 2024 disposed of on 18th June, 2024
(supra). He, therefore, submits that this Writ Petition may be
disposed of accordingly.
9. This Court, on earlier occasion, directed learned State
Counsel to take instruction with regard to applicability of the ratio
in the case of Angul Sukinda Railway Ltd., Bhubaneswar to this
case. On verification, Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Standing
Counsel submits that the ratio in the case of Angul Sukinda
Railway Ltd., Bhubaneswar (supra) is squarely applicable to the
instant case.
10. In that view of the matter, this Court without delving
further into the contentions raised by learned counsel for the
Parties on merit of Judgment under Amnnexure-2, disposes of the
writ petition in the light of the decision in the case of Angul
Sukinda Railway Ltd., Bhubaneswar (supra).
11. As the Petitioner is the beneficiary of land acquisition and
a person interested and was not provided with any opportunity of
hearing during adjudication of the reference under Section 18 of
the Act, the impugned judgment under Annexure-2 is set aside
and the matter is remitted to learned Civil Judge, (Senior
Division), Jajpur Road, Jajpur to adjudicate L.A.R. Case No.05 of
2014 (under Section 18 of the Act) afresh as expeditiously as
possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of
service of notice on the parties, providing opportunity of hearing
to the parties concerned, including the Petitioner.
12. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jajpur Road, Jajpur
shall act upon production of certified copy of this order.
13. Since this writ petition is disposed of without issuing any
notice to the land loser (Opposite Party No.7), he is at liberty to
move this Court for variation of this order if he feels aggrieved.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on
proper application.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge
(S.K. Mishra)
Signed by: MONALISA SWAIN Judge
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 28-Jan-2026 10:52:44
Mona
