Allowed¶24

Asadhu Guru v. Land Acquisition,Zone Officer, Khurda Road

Orissa HC24 Jan 2024LAA/15/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; 52 days delay; I.A. No.45 of 2023; L.A.A. No.15 of 2023; Asadhu Guru v. Land Acquisition Zone Officer, Boudh; Orissa High Court at Cuttack; Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra; Section 64 RFCTLAR & R Act 2013; maintainability of petition; LAR&R Case No.15 of 2021; judgment dated 16.11.2022 set aside; remand; six-month time bound direction; Prahallad Sahu, L.A. No.08 of 2022, decided 17.01.2023; land acquisition appeal; Boudh.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 52 days condoned (I.A. No. 45 of 2023 disposed of); impugned judgment dated 16.11.2022 in LAR&R 15 of 2021 set aside; matter remanded to the Court below for adjudication in accordance with law with opportunity of hearing, preferably within six months of communication/production of the certified copy of the order. ¶24

Asadhu Guru Vs Land Acquisition,Zone Officer, Khurda Road — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 52 days in presenting the Memorandum of Appeal should be condoned (I.A. No. 45 of 2023). +1 more

¶14

Court's answer

The delay of 52 days in presenting the Memorandum of Appeal is condoned in view of the submissions of the Appellant's counsel and the grounds taken in the application.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

In view of the settled position of law in Prahallad Sahu (supra), the impugned judgment dated 16.11.2022 passed in LAR&R 15 of 2021 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Court below for adjudication in accordance with law giving opportunity of hearing to the parties.

¶24

Key takeaways

The Court below is directed to conclude the proceeding in LAR&R Case No.15 of 2021 at the earliest, preferably within a period of six months from the date of communication/production of the certified copy of the order.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Orissa High Court, Cuttack (S.K. Mishra, J.), order dated 24.01.2024 in L.A.A. No.15 of 2023 (Asadhu Guru v. Land Acquisition Zone Officer, Boudh): (i) I.A. No.45 of 2023 allowed - 52 days' delay in presenting the Memorandum of Appeal condoned, the State/Respondent having filed no objection; (ii) the appeal, being squarely covered by this Court's earlier judgment dated 17.01.2023 in L.A. No.08 of 2022 (Prahallad Sahu Vs. Land Acquisition Zone Officer, Khurda Road, Boudh), was allowed: the judgment dated 16.11.2022 of the Court below in LAR&R 15 of 2021 - which, instead of deciding the case on merit, held the petition under Section 64 of the RFCTLAR & R Act, 2013 not maintainable - was set aside and the matter remanded to the Court below for adjudication in accordance with law after hearing the parties, with a direction to conclude the proceeding preferably within six months of communication/production of the certified copy of the order.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

L.A.A. No.15 of 2023

¶3

Asadhu Guru …. Appellant

¶4

Mr. S.K. Joshi, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

Land Acquisition Zone …. Respondent Officer, Boudh

¶7

Mr. T. Pattanaik, Additional Standing Counsel

¶8

CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA

¶9

Order No.

¶10

ORDER 24.01.2024 I.A. No. 45 of 2023

¶11

05.

¶12

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶13

2. This Interlocutory Application has been filed for condonation of delay in preferring the Appeal.

¶14

3. As pointed out by the Office, there is a delay of 52 days in presenting the Memorandum of Appeal.

¶15

4. Though this application has been filed since 10^th March, 2023, no objection has yet been filed by the State/Respondent opposing to the said prayer for condonation of delay. However Mr. Pattanaik, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State/Respondent orally opposes to the said prayer for condonation of delay.

¶16

5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Appellant so also the grounds taken in this application, the delay is condoned.

¶17

6. Accordingly, the I.A. stands disposed of.

¶18

(S. K. Mishra) Judge

¶19

L.A.A. 15 of 2023

¶20

06.

¶21

1. Learned Counsel for the parties are present.

¶22

2. Mr. Joshi, learned Counsel for the Appellant submits, since State is the Sole Respondent, on whom copy of the Memorandum of Appeal have already been served, requisites along with the Appeal Memo has not been filed. Accordingly, he prays to ignore the said defect pointed out by the Office.

¶23

3. Mr. Joshi hands up a copy of the judgment dated 17.01.2023 passed in L.A. No. 08 of 2022 ( Prahallad Sahu Vs. Land Acquisition Zone Officer, Khurda Road, Boudh ) after serving a copy of the same on the learned Counsel for the State/Respondent and submits, the present Appeal is squarely covered by the judgment delivered by this Court.

¶24

4. Admittedly the Court below, instead of deciding the case on merit, while answering issue Nos.1 & 2, came to a conclusion that the said petition filed under Section 64 of RFCTLAR & R Act, 2013 is not maintainable. In view of the settled position of law as held in Prahallad Sahu (supra) referring to the judgments of the Apex Court, the impugned judgment dated 16.11.2022 passed in LAR&R 15 of 2021 is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Court below for adjudication of the case in accordance with law giving opportunity of hearing to the parties. As referral case is of the year 2021, the Court below is directed to conclude the proceeding in LAR&R Case No.15 of 2021 at the earliest, preferably within a period of six months from the date of communication/production of the certified copy of this order.

¶25

5. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application as per rules.

(S. K. Mishra)

Judge

Kanhu

Signature Not Verified

¶30

Digitally Signed Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR PRADHAN Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa , Cut tack. Date: 26-Jan-2024 11:43:05

¶31

Page 2 of 2

Asadhu Guru v. Land Acquisition,Zone Officer, Khurda Road

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asadhu Guru v. Land Acquisition,Zone Officer, Khurda Road

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pravakar Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Chakradhar Behera Vs Cm,Cuttack Municpal

Girija Devi Vs Subash Ch. Agarwala

Nabin Behera Vs State

Dr.Trupti Patnaik Vs Financial Adviser

Union of India Vs Biswanath Mahapatra