[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Upasna Lal And Another vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opp. ... on 30 January, 2026
Author: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
Bench: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.3052 of 2026
Upasna Lal and another .... Petitioners
Mr. P.K. Rath, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Subham Agrawal, Advocate
Ms. S. Dash, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & others .... Opp. Parties
Mr. P.K. Sahoo, ASC
CORAM:
JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO
ORDER
30.01.2026
Order No. Hybrid Mode
01. 1. Appearance memo of the learned Sr. Advocate for the
petitioners shall be filed in the Registry. Same shall be taken
on record. Scanned copy be updated.
2. The writ petition has been filed with the following
prayers:
"In the circumstances, it is therefore most humbly
prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be graciously
pleased to:
A. Admit the writ petition and issue appropriate writ,
order quashing Certificate Case No.37 of 2018
initiated against the petitioners;
B. Issue appropriate writ(s)/order quashing the notice
under Form 3 purportedly issued to the petitioners
by OP no.2 in Certificate Case No.37 of 2018 dated
03.11.2025 under ANNEXURE-23 and all
consequential proceedings thereto;
C. Issue appropriate writ(s)/order quashing the
Certificate of Public Demand issued in Form No.1
dated 23.06.2018 under ANNEXURE-4 and all
consequential proceedings thereto;
D. Issue appropriate writ(s)/order declaring that the
substitution of the petitioners Certificate Debtors
vide order passed by OP No.2 dated 27.10.2025 in
Certificate Case No.37 of 2018 is unlawful and
time-barred; ... ..."
3. The Certificate Case No.37 of 2018 initiated by Dy.
Director of Mines, Joda Circle, Keonjhar/opposite party no.3
under the provisions of Odisha Public Demands Recovery Act,
1962, has been initiated purportedly for recovery of
compensation under Section 21 (5) of the Mines and Minerals
(Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 amounting to INR
99.83 crores. The proceeding under the OPDR Act was
initiated before the Certificate Officer, i.e., the Collector,
Keonjhar.
4. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Additional Standing Counsel for the opposite
parties.
It is submitted that the alleged certificate debtor, Sri T.B.
Lal, is grandfather of the present petitioners, who are
daughters of his son-Shri Harsh Vardhan Lal (since deceased)
passed away in the year 2008, Sri Harsh Vardhan Lal also
passed away on 03.04.2024.
5. It is stated in the petition supported by affidavit that the
service of demand notice under Section 6 of OPDR Act,1962 on
the purported certificate debtor Sh. T.B. Lal substituted by Sh.
H. V. Lal and at present the petitioners has not been done at
all, let alone in the prescribed manner under Section 6 read
with Rules 3, 5, and 7 under Schedule II.
6. It is submitted Late Shri H. V. Lal, the father of the
petitioners-sisters separated from her wife Smt. Sonia Lal
mother of the petitioners as per the decree dated 10.03.2000
granted by the Additional District Judge, Delhi in H.M.A.
No.553 of 1997 (Mrs. Sonia Lal v. Mr. Harsh Vardhan Lal) and
H.M.A. No.189 of 2000 (Mrs. Sonia Lal v. Mr. Harsh Vardhan
Lal) under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Prior
to the said date, the parents of the petitioners were living
separately since 1995. Smt. Sonia Lal had the custody of both
her children, the petitioners. Subsequently, Smt. Lal remarried
on 29.12.2006.
7. The learned Senior Advocate for petitioner relies on the
decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok Transport
Agency v. Awadhesh Kumar and another: (1998) 5 SCC
567. Relied upon paragraphs-7 and 9 are reproduced
herein:
"7. In the present case A.C. Basu, Proprietor of
Ashok Transport Agency, had died before the date of
the institution of the suit and on the date of
institution of the suit, the proprietary concern was not
in existence. Only the legal representatives of A.C.
Basu could be sued with regard to any cause of
action arising against A.C. Basu in connection with
the proprietary business. We find it difficult to
understand how the provisions of Rule 4 Order XXX
CPC, could be extended to such a case.
9. In the circumstances, we are unable to uphold the
impugned judgment of the High Court. In our opinion,
the executing court has rightly taken the view that
the suit having been filed against the dead person,
the decree was a nullity and could not be executed.
The appeal is accordingly allowed, the impugned
judgment of the High Court is set aside and the order
passed by the executing court is restored. No order
as to costs.
Relying on Ashok Transport (supra) it is submitted
that the initiation of the proceeding against a dead person
cannot be subsequently rectified by finding out legal heirs
and impleading them. It is submitted that the submissions
are made without prejudice to the other rights and
contentions of the petitioners.
8. In response, with much vehemence it is submitted by the
learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the opposite
parties that the petitioners have approached this Court at the
stage of notice, therefore it is premature. A statutory appeal
U/s. 60 of the OPDR Act is available against the order at
Annexure-23 dated 03.11.2025. It is submitted that as it would
be evident from Annexure-23 opportunity was given to the
petitioners which they have not availed. It is further submitted
that the petitioners instead of replying to the notice have
approached this Court which cannot be sustained.
9. It is submitted that the OPDR proceeding was initiated
pursuant to an order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. As
a natural response, the learned Additional Standing Counsel
was requested to bring to the notice of the Court the said
order and the details of it. In response he submits that
immediately he is not having it. But prima facie the
authorities have acted based on direction of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court.
10. The order having not been shown, this Court is unable
to refer to the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court whether in
fact any direction was issued regarding the present
petitioners e.g. whether there is direction to initiate
proceeding against them. It would be suffice to note that
Annexure-3 discloses the following:
"In inviting a reference to the subject cited
above, I am to say that in pursuance to the judgment
Dt.02.08.2017 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed
in the matter of W.P.(C) No.114/2014 in the matter of
Common Cause Vrs. Union of India & others. Further
in pursuance to para 225 of the order dt: 02.08.2017
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court the lessee has been
directed to pay the amount by Dt:31.12.2017.
The Apex Court in its subsequent order Dt:
30.01.2018 has directed the State Government to
take coercive steps to recover the unpaid dues from
the defaulting mining lease holders. In this regard the
State Government in S & M Department vide office
order No:1224/SM, Dt: 21.02.2018 has decided to
recover the unpaid dues from the defaulting lease
holder by certificate case under OPDR Act."
11. Apparently, in the proceeding before the Collector, i.e.,
Certificate Case No.37 of 2018, the deceased- Sh. T.B. Lal was
made party and notices were issued by order dated 23.06.2018
to be served through the Tahasildar, Barbil. Thereafter, the
notice remained unserved. By order dated 27.10.2018, the
authority in the said proceeding has recorded that Sh. T.B. Lal
had expired which is reproduced herein:
"The case is put up today for filling of show cause
reply by C.Dr. (M/s. T.B. Lal & Co. At/P.O.Barbil,
Dist-Keonjhar towards realization of Certificate
amount worth Rs.99,83,22,125/- on account of
compensation u/s. 21(5) of MMDR Act, 1957 for
violation of EP Act, 1986 in respect of Jajang Iron Ore
Mines over an area of 39,898 Hects.
The served copy of Demand Notice No.1478 dated
23.06.2018 meant for C.Dr. is not received back from
Collector, Khurda till date.
The C.Hr. appeared today and produced the
movable property list of the C.Dr. He expressed that
the C.Dr. is dead. The Collector, Khurda be requested
for enquiry & trace out the legal heirs of the deceased
C.Dr. and furnish the same before the next date for
issue of fresh." (sic)
12. Issue notice along with this order.
The learned Additional Standing Counsel upon
advance copy served enters appearance and waives notice on
behalf of the opposite parties.
List in the week commencing 23.02.2026.
13. Heard learned Sr. Advocate for the petitioners. He
reiterates his submissions as noted above.
14. Issue notice as above.
The learned Additional Standing Counsel upon
advance copy served enters appearance on behalf of the
opposite parties and waives notice.
15. As an interim measure, it is directed that further
proceeding in the pending Certificate Case No.37 of 2018 shall
be adjourned beyond 03.03.2026, the next date shall be
subject to the convenience of the presiding authority in seisin.
No coercive action shall be taken/orders be passed by
OPDR authority against the petitioners till the next date of
hearing.
16. List in the week commencing 23.02.2026.
Opposite parties shall file their counter affidavit by
16.02.2026.
Liberty to mention.
(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo)
Judge
Gs/Radha
