[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Manjushree Prusti vs Special Land Acquisition Officer on 25 March, 2026
Author: K.R. Mohapatra
Bench: K.R. Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.7121 OF 2026
(An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India)
*****
1. Manjushree Prusti
2. Vedavyas Prusti
3.Chandramani Prusti ...... Petitioners
-Versus-
1. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Talcher-Sambalpur Rail Link,
Sambalpur
2.The Deputy Chief Engibeer (Construction),
East Coast Railway, Khetrajpur,
Sambalpur ...... Opp. Parties
Advocates appeared:
For Petitioners : Mr. Rabindra Nath Debata, Advocate
For Opp. Party No.1 : Mr. Swayambhu Mishra,
Additional Standing Counsel
For Opp. Party No.2: None
CORAM :
MR. JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
----------------------------------------------------
Heard and disposed of on 25.03.2026
----------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
By the Bench;
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Petitioners in this writ application seeks to assail the
order dated 16th August, 1995 (Annexure-2), passed by the
learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sambalpur in L.A.
W.P.(C) No.7121 OF 2026
Case No.119 of 1991 by which, the reference under Section
18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, 'the Act')
was rejected for non-appearance of the applicant in the
reference.
2.1. The Petitioners also pray for setting aside the order
dated 13th February, 2025 (Annexure-6) passed by the learned
Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rairakhol, Sambalpur in
C.M.A. No.03 of 2022 filed under Section 151 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 to recall the order dated 16th August,
1995 and to re-hear the reference under Section-18 of the Act
afresh on merit.
3. Mr. Debata, learned counsel for the Petitioners
submits that for acquisition of land of the predecessor of the
Petitioners, namely, Nilamani Prusti, land acquisition case
was initiated and an award under Section 11 of the Act was
passed. The said Nilamani Prusti, being aggrieved by the
quantum of compensation, filed an application to refer the
matter to the Civil Court for enhancement of compensation.
Accordingly, the matter was referred to the learned Sub-
Judge, Sambalpur [subsequently re-designated as Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Sambalpur] and L.A. Case No.119 of 1991
was registered under Section 18 of the Act in his file. The said
Nilamani Prusti, on being noticed, appeared through his
Counsel and sought for adjournment to file objection. The
matter was lastly taken up on 16th August, 1995 on which
date, neither said Nilamani Prusti nor his Counsel appeared.
W.P.(C) No.7121 OF 2026
As such, the reference was rejected by the impugned order
under Annexure-2 (supra).
3.1. The Petitioners, being the legal heirs of the said
Nilamani Prusti, were unaware of the order dated 16th August,
1995. Subsequently, husband of the Petitioner No.1, namely,
Nilamani Prusti died. When L.A. Case No.123/2009 of
1991/2017 initiated at the instance of a co-villager and
adjacent land owner, namely, Asadhu Deheri was disposed of,
the Petitioners enquired about their case. They being the rustic
villagers could not get any information instantly. Thus, they
engaged an advocate and applied for certified copy of L.A.
Case No.119 of 1991 on 29th June, 2022, which was made
available to them on 23rd September, 2022. From the certified
copy of the order sheet in L.A. Case No.119 of 1991, they
came to know that learned Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Sambalpur, vide order dated 16th August, 1995, had rejected
the reference on the ground of non-appearance of the
applicant in the reference. As such, the Petitioners filed
C.M.A. No.03 of 2022 under Section 151 C.P.C. to recall
order dated 16th August, 1995 passed in L.A. Case No.119 of
1991 and to re-hear the reference on merit.
3.2. It is further submitted by Mr. Debata, learned counsel
for the Petitioners that the delay in filing the petition under
Section 151 C.P.C. was not intentional and the circumstances
were beyond the control of the Petitioners. They were
unaware of the proceedings in L.A. Case No.119 of 1991
during life time of their predecessor, namely, Nilamani Prusti.
W.P.(C) No.7121 OF 2026
It is also stated that the learned advocate of Nilamani Prusti
never intimated the proceedings in L.A. Case No.119 of 1991.
Thus, they prayed for condoning the delay and to pass an
order recalling the order dated 16th August, 1995 in L.A. Case
No.119 of 1991.
3.3. It is also submitted by Mr. Debata, learned counsel for
the Petitioners that when a reference is made under Section 18
of the Act, it could not have been rejected due to non-
appearance of the applicant. It should have been answered on
merit taking into consideration the material available before
the Court. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sambalpur
never made any endeavour in that regard. Thus, the impugned
order dated 16th August, 1995, under Annexure-2 is not
sustainable and is liable to be set aside. For that reason,
learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rairakhol, under whose
jurisdiction, the land in question situates, should have recalled
the order dated 16th August, 1995 and provided an opportunity
to the Petitioners to participate in the reference under Section
18 of the Act. He, therefore, prays for setting aside both the
orders under Annexures-2 and 6 and to remit the matter to the
learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rairakhol for hearing
of the reference under Section 18 of the Act giving
opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.
4. Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel
vehemently objects to the submission of Mr. Debata, learned
counsel for the Petitioners. It is his submission that notice in
the reference (L.A. Case No.119 of 1991) was issued to the
W.P.(C) No.7121 OF 2026
applicant, namely, Nilamani Prusti. He also appeared through
his advocate. After appearance, said Nialamani Prusti sought
for several adjournments to file objection, but, till 16th August,
1995, no objection could be filed in the said reference. Thus,
apparently, no material was available before the learned Civil
Judge (Senior Division), Sambalpur to answer the reference.
Although the impugned order dated 16th August, 1995 is not
suitably worded, but, by the said order, the award passed
under Section 11 of the Act has been confirmed. As such, the
Petitioners have a remedy under Section 54 of the Act to file
an Appeal before this Court.
4.1. It is further submitted that learned Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Rairakhol has also not committed any error in
rejecting the petition under Section 151 of C.P.C., as the
explanation for delay in filing the petition under Section 151
CPC were/was neither sufficient nor proper. There is also no
justification for condonation of delay of 27 years in filing
such petition. He, therefore, submits that the writ petition is
incompetent and is liable to be dismissed.
5. Although notice has not yet been issued in the matter,
Mr. Debata, learned counsel for the Petitioners prays for final
disposal of the writ petition stating that the issue involved in
the matter is no more res integra. Mr. Mishra, learned
Additional Standing Counsel also endorsed the same and
submits that he has no objection if the writ petition is finally
disposed of.
W.P.(C) No.7121 OF 2026
5.1. In view of the order proposed to be passed in this writ
petition, keeping in mind that the reference under Section 18
of the Act was made in the year 1991 and the issue involved
in the writ petition, this Court feels issuance of notice to the
Opposite Party No.2 will further delay the matter and no
fruitful purpose will be served awaiting response from the
Opposite Party No.2.
6. In view of the above, this Court proceeds to adjudicate
the writ petition.
7. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and on
perusal of records, it appears that Nalamani Prusti, the applicant
in the reference under Section 18 of the Act appeared through
Mr. R.P. Kuanr and associates on 4th September, 1992.
Thereafter, several adjournments were taken up to 13 th April,
1995 for filing of objection by the applicant. The matter was
taken up on 6th July, 1995, on which date, the matter could not
be taken up due to transfer of the Presiding Officer and the case
was posted to 16th August, 1995 for hearing of the case. On 16th
August, 1995, the applicant, namely, Nilamani Prusti and his
Advocate were absent on call and took no step. As such, the
learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rairakhol rejected the
reference.
8. Law is well-settled that when a reference is made to the
competent Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act, it has to be
answered on merit. Reference may be made to the case of
Khajan Singh (dead) by his LRs -v- Union of India; AIR 2002
SC 726. Apparently, order dated 16th August, 1995 was not
W.P.(C) No.7121 OF 2026
passed on merit. Due to absence of the applicant and his
Advocate on call, the reference was rejected, which is contrary
to the settled position of law. Learned Civil Judge, while
rejecting the reference on merit failed to exercise the jurisdiction
vested in him under the Act. It appears that no endeavor has
been made in the instant case by learned Civil Judge to dispose
of the reference on merit. Hence, the order dated 16 th August,
1995 (Anexure-2) is not sustainable.
9. An application under Section 151 C.P.C was filed in the
year 2022 by the present Petitioners, which was registered as
CMA No.03 of 2022. On perusal of the petition under Section
151 CPC (Annexure-5), it appears that explanations for
condonation of delay were offered. The main ground of delay in
filing such application was that the Petitioners could not know
about the rejection of the reference made. Learned Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Rairakhol, while considering the petition
under Section 151 of C.P.C, should have taken into
consideration that a reference made under Section 18 of the Act
should not have been rejected due to non-appearance of the
applicant.
10. Written objection was filed to the petition under Section
151 CPC stating that the petition was filed with a delay of more
than 20 years and thus, the petition should be dismissed.
Objection on merit of the petition under Section 151 CPC was
also made. This Court is not delving into the merit of the case of
the Petitioners either in the petition under Section 151 CPC or in
the reference under Section 18 of the Act. In the instant writ
W.P.(C) No.7121 OF 2026
petition, it is only being examined, whether the reference could
have been rejected due to the absence of the applicant or his
counsel and it has already been answered in favour of the
Petitioners. Further, explanation offered for condonation of
delay appears to be plausible as the circumstances mentioned
therein indicate that the Petitioners were unaware about the
rejection of the reference due to non-appearance of their
predecessor. No material was also placed before learned Civil
Court to disbelieve the explanation offered by the Petitioners for
condonation of delay.
11. In that view of the matter, both the order dated 16th
August, 1995 (Annexure-2) passed by learned Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Sambalpur in L.A. Case No.119 of 1991 and
order dated 13th February, 2025 (Annexure-6) passed by the
learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rairakhol, Sambalpur in
C.M.A. No.03 of 2022 are not sustainable and are set aside.
Consequently, L.A. Case No.119 of 1991 is restored to its file
and the matter is remitted back to the learned Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Rairakhol. Accordingly, learned Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Rairakhol, is directed to answer the reference
on merit giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.
12. Since no notice has been issued to Opposite Party No.2
namely, the Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Coast
Railway, Khetrajpur in the district of Sambalpur, it is at liberty
to seek variance of this judgment, if it feels aggrieved.
W.P.(C) No.7121 OF 2026
13. 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 25th March, 2026/Kanhu
Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR PRADHAN
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Date: 28-Mar-2026 12:15:14
W.P.(C) No.7121 OF 2026
