Mamata Sahu Vs Land Acquisition Officer,Kalahandi — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Mamata Sahu Vs Land Acquisition Officer,Kalahandi — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal allowed; impugned judgment dated 29.06.2022 in LAR & R Case No.06 of 2022 set aside and matter remitted to the Court below for reconsideration on merit for enhancement of compensation, to be disposed of within six months of communication of the certified copy of this order.

Issue for consideration

Whether the referral Court rightly dismissed the Reference Petition under section 64 of the Act, 2013 on the ground that the appellant had accepted the awarded amount without objection, despite having received compensation under protest.

Court's answer

This Court accepted the appellant's submission (which the learned State Counsel did not dispute) that her case is squarely covered by the judgment in Sujata Senapati (2003 (Supp. I) OLR 388) and accordingly found the referral Court's dismissal unsustainable.

Ratio / Principle

The impugned judgment dated 29.06.2022 passed by the referral Court in LAR & R Case No.06 of 2022 is set aside.

Key takeaways

The matter is remitted to the Court below to reconsider the case on merit for enhancement of compensation in accordance with law and to dispose of it within six months from communication of the certified copy of this order.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Land acquisition appeal - Reference under section 64 of the Act, 2013 - Appellant received compensation under protest, but the referral Court (LAR & R Case No.06 of 2022, judgment dated 29.06.2022) dismissed the Reference Petition holding that she had accepted the awarded amount and never objected thereto (Ext. E and Ext. D C.C. Voucher). Appellant's counsel urged that the case is squarely covered by Sujata Senapati Vs. L.A. Zone Officer, Khurda Road, Boudh, 2003 (Supp. I) OLR 388; the State Counsel did not dispute the submission. This Court set aside the impugned judgment and remitted the matter to the Court below to reconsider the case on merit for enhancement of compensation in accordance with law and dispose of it within six months from communication of the certified copy of this order.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

LAA No.30 of 2022

Mamata Sahu

Appellant

Mr. M.K. Mohapatra, Advocate

-versus-

L.A. Officer, Kalahandi

…. Respondent

Mr. B. Panigrahi, Advocate

CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA

ORDER

13.09.2024

Order No.

04.

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Learned Counsel for the Appellant, drawing attention of this Court to the impugned judgment dated 29.06.2022 passed in LAR & R Case No.06 of 2022, submits that though the present Appellant received compensation under protest, because of which a reference was made to the Court below under section 64 of the Act, 2013, while answering the point no.1 in the said case, the referral Court erroneously answered the said point against the Appellant and dismissed the Reference Petition on the ground that the present Appellant (Petitioner before the Court below) accepted the awarded amount and had never objected the same either on Ext. E and Ext. D (C.C. Voucher).

3. Drawing attention of this Court to the judgment passed by this Court reported in 2003 (Supp. I) OLR 388 (Sujata Senapati Vs. L.A. Zone Officer, Khurda Road,

Boudh) , learned Counsel for the Appellant submits, the

case of the Appellant is squarely covered by the said judgment of this Court.

4. The said submission made by the learned Counsel for the Appellant is not disputed by the learned State Counsel. 5. Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 29.06.2022 passed by the referral Court in LAR & R Case No.06 of 2022 is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Court below to reconsider the said case on merit for enhancement of compensation in accordance with law and dispose of the same within a period of six months from the date of communication of the certified copy of this order.

6. Urgent certified copy of the said order be granted on proper application as per rules.

(S. K. MISHRA)

JUDGE

Banita

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: BANITA PRIYADARSHINI PALEI Designation: SR. STENOGRAPHER Reason: AUTHENTICATION Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 14-Sep-2024 15:48:11

Page 2 of 2