Tansukha Rai Agarwal Vs State

For the Petitioners : Mr. G.N.Mishra,Advocate For the Opposite Parties : Mr.U.C.Mishra, Advocate Mr.A.Pattnaik,Advocate (for the O.P. Nos.3 and 4) Mr.B.Bhuyan, Sr.Advocate Mr.S.S.Bhuyan, Advocate

¶14

Page 1 of 15

¶15

(for the O.P. Nos.5(a) to 5(c)) Mr.K.K. Mishra, Advocate (for the O.P. Nos.7(a) to 7(c)) Mr.P.K.Mohapatra (for the O.P. No.9) Mr.S.K. Dash, Advocate (for O.P. Nos.6 and 8) Mr.G.Mohanty S.C. (for the O.P. Nos.1 and 2)

¶16

P R E S E N T:

¶17

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA

¶18

Date of Hearing: 03.09.2025 :: Date of Judgment : 24.09.2025

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.—

¶21

1. Since, both the revisions under Section 115 of the C.P.C., 1908 have been filed by the Petitioners challenging one order i.e. an order dated 19.11.2013 passed in Misc. Case No.4 of 2013 by the Land Acquisition Officer, Angul (O.P. No.2), then, both the revisions have been taken up together analogously for their final disposal through this common judgment.

¶22

2. The factual back grounds of these revisions, which prompted the Petitioners for filing of the same is that, the properties covered under Hal Khata Nos.259 and 64 in Mouza Nandichhod @ Gopiballavpur corresponding to Sabik Khata

¶23

Page 2 of 15

¶24

No.161/6 and 90 were acquired by the State Government as per notification dated 19.01.2008 for M/s. Tata Sponge Iron Limited.

¶25

3. When, during the course of land acquisition proceedings, compensation amount of the above acquired properties was passed in favour of the O.P. Nos.3 to 5 by the Land Acquisition Officer, Angul (O.P. No.2), then, the Petitioners filed application under Sections 10, 18 and 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 before the O.P. No.2 claiming their shares in the compensation amounts of the said acquired properties on the ground that, they are the persons interested in the said acquired properties having their interest in the same and prayed before the O.P. No.2 to refer the said dispute to the Civil Court for apportionments as well as enhancement of the compensation amount, but, the O.P. No.2 rejected their application.

¶26

For which, they (Petitioners) challenged the same filing a writ petition vide W.P.(C) No.6645 of 2011 before the High Court of Orissa. As per the judgment dated 16.05.2011 passed in W.P.(C) No.6645 of 2011, the High Court set aside to the order passed by the O.P. No.2 refusing to refer the matter to the Civil Court and directed to deposit the compensation amount of the acquired properties in the Bank without disbursing the same to

¶27

Page 3 of 15

¶28

the O.P. Nos.3 to 5 till the proper apportionments are made by the Civil Court through reference.

¶29

Thereafter, the O.P. Nos.3 to 5 filed a review petition bearing No.125 of 2011 praying for reviewing the above order dated 16.05.2011 passed in W.P.(C) No.6645 of 2011. That review petition No.125 of 2011 was disposed of on dated 27.10.2011 by the High Court modifying the order dated 16.05.2011 to a little extent directing the O.P. No.2 to deposit the awarded compensation amount in any one of the Nationalized Banks and the objection of the Petitioners shall be decided by the O.P. No.2 and the deposited compensation amount shall not be withdrawn by the O.P. Nos.3 to 5 till then.

¶30

Thereafter, the O.P. Nos.3 to 5 approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing Civil Appeal No.918 of 2013 challenging the order of the High Court. That, Civil Appeal No.918 of 2013 was disposed of by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on dated 01.02.2013 directing the O.P. No.2 to reconsider the objections of the Petitioners under Sections 10 and 18 read with Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and to decide the same through a speaking order within a maximum period of three months from

¶31

Page 4 of 15

¶32

the date of receipt/production of the copy of the judgment of the

¶33

Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶34

Thereafter, on the basis of the aforesaid directions made by

¶35

the Hon’ble Supreme Court as per judgment dated 01.02.2013 passed in Civil Appeal No.918 of 2013, the Land Acquisition Officer, Angul (O.P. No.2) initiated Misc. Case No.4 of 2013 for reconsideration of the objection under Sections 10 and 18 read with Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 of the Petitioners relating to their prayer for referring the matter to the Civil Court and provided opportunity of being heard to the Parties.

¶36

4. After hearing from both the sides, the O.P. No.2 disposed of the said Misc. Case No.04 of 2013 finally on dated 19.11.2013 rejecting the objection of the Petitioners assigning the reasons that,

¶37

“the Petitioners have no interest in the acquired properties, for which, the prayer of the Petitioners in their objection to refer the matter to the Civil Court under Sections 10 and 18 read with Section 30 of the L.A. Act, 1894 rejected”.

¶38

5. On being aggrieved with the said order of rejection to the

¶39

objection under Sections 10 and 18 read with Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 of the Petitioners passed by the O.P.

¶40

Page 5 of 15

¶41

No.2, the Petitioners challenged the same by filing this revision under Section 115 of the C.P.C., 1908 being the Petitioners against the O.P. Nos.3 to 5 arraying the O.P. Nos.6 to 9 as proforma O.P.s and also arraying the State of Orissa and Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Special Land Acquisition Officer, Angul as O.P. Nos.1 and 2 respectively.

¶42

6. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the Petitioners, the learned counsels for the O.P. Nos.3 and 4, O.P. Nos.5(a) to 5(c), O.P. Nos.6 and 8, O.P. Nos.7(a) to 7(c), O.P. No.9 and the learned standing counsel for the O.P. Nos.1 and 2.

¶43

7. In order to assail the impugned order dated 19.11.2013, the learned counsel for the Petitioners relied upon the decision between Narayan Das Vrs. Kasinath Pani and others decided in Civil Revision No.25 of 1965 on dated 12.12.1967 .

¶44

On the contrary in support of the impugned order, the learned counsel for the O.P. No.5 relied upon the following

¶45

decisions:-

¶46

(i) Sharda Devi Vrs. State of Bihar and another reported in (2003) 3 SCC 128. (ii) Sayed Mohd. Shah Abdul Hamid Kadri Vrs. State of Maharashtra and another reported in 2005 (4) Mh.L.J. 1060.

¶47

8. In the objection of the Petitioners under Sections 10 and 18

¶48

read with Section 30 of the L.A. Act, 1894 before the O.P. No.2,

¶49

Page 6 of 15

¶50

the Petitioners had claimed their share in the awarded compensation of the acquired properties stating that, Khubiram Agarwal was the common ancestor of the Petitioners and O.P. Nos.3 to 9. The acquired properties along with other properties were their ancestral properties, those were devolved upon them from Khubiram Agarwal. The acquired properties are the joint and undivided properties of the Petitioners and O.P. Nos.3 to 9. There was a registered deed of partition on dated 30.05.1963 in respect of their some joint properties between them, but, the acquired properties were kept out of that registered partition deed to be partitioned later on. So, the acquired properties have not been partitioned between them (Petitioners and O.P. Nos.3 to 9) through any metes and bounds partition as yet.

¶51

Therefore, the Petitioners and the O.P. Nos.3 to 9 have their shares in the compensation of the acquired properties. For which, the Petitioners are entitled to get their shares from the compensation amount of the acquired properties.

¶52

To which, the O.P. Nos.3 to 5 objected stating that, the R.o.Rs of the acquired properties stand in the name of Gourishankar Agarwal vide Hal Khata No.64 and Santosh Kumar Agarwal vide Hal Khata No.259 and both the Khatas corresponds

¶53

Page 7 of 15

¶54

to Sabik Khata No.161/6 and 90 and the said properties were the self-acquired properties of their predecessors i.e. Gourishankar Agarwal and Sontosh Kumar Agarwal, in which, the Petitioners have no interest on the basis of the unchallenged R.o.Rs of the Sabik and Hal settlement in their favour.

¶55

After taking into account the claim of the Petitioners, objection of the O.P. Nos.3 to 5 and the documents relied by both the sides in respect of the title of the acquired properties, it was held by the Land Acquisition Officer, Angul (O.P. No.2) in the impugned order dated 19.11.2013 (Annexure-1) that,

¶56

“the Petitioners have not been able to establish their prima facie title or interest in respect of the acquired properties in their favour. For which, the case of the Petitioners before him (O.P. No.2) is not covered under Sections 10 and 18 read with Section 30 of the LA Act, 1894 for its reference to the Civil Court. Therefore, the Land Acquisition Officer, Angul (O.P. No.2) rejected to the prayer of the Petitioners for referring the matter to the Civil Court”.

¶57

9. Now, the question arises, whether these revisions under Section 115 of the C.P.C., 1908 filed by the Petitioners challenging the order of rejection to their application for referring the matter under Sections 10 and 18 read with Section 30 of the

¶58

Page 8 of 15

¶59

L.A. Act, 1894 to the Civil Court for adjudication are

¶60

maintainable under law?

¶61

On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decision:-

¶62

In a case between M.Santama Vrs. State of Orissa and another reported in 2003 (I) OLR 540 in Para No.4 that,

¶63

application for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act when rejected by the Land Acquisition Officer, then, against such order, revision under Section 115 of the CPC maintainable.

¶64

10. So, in view of the propositions of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decision, it cannot be held that, the revisions filed

¶65

by the Petitioners challenging the order of rejection to the application under Sections 10 and 18 read with Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer (O.P. No.2) in Misc. Case No.4 of 2013 are not maintainable under law. For which, in other words, it is held that, these revisions filed by the Petitioners are maintainable (entertainable) under law for adjudication.

¶66

11. The law concerning the scope, power and jurisdiction of the L.A. Collector like the O.P. No.2 for referring a matter under Sections 30 and 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 relating to

¶67

Page 9 of 15

¶68

apportionments and enhancement of the compensation amount

¶69

has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:-

¶70

(i) In a case between Bidyadhar Mahalik Vrs. Land Acquisition Officer, Kalahandi reported in 111 (2011) CLT 764 in Para No.13 that,

¶71

right of land looser, which is not only a constitutional right guaranteed to the citizen, but, also a human right as held by the Supreme Court. If, the award is not satisfactory, the land looser have got every right to file a petition under Section 18 of the L.A. Act, 1894 to make reference to the appropriate Court for proper adjudication and consideration of the matter on the basis of the market value.

¶72

(ii) In a case between G.H.Grant Vrs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1966 (SC) 237 in Para No.19 that,

¶73

The Land Acquisition Collector is not authorized to decide finally the conflicting rights of the persons interested in the amount of compensation. He is primarily concerned with the acquisition of the land. The dispute relating to the conflicting rights of the Parties in the acquired properties as to be decided either in a reference under Section 18 or 30 of the L.A. Act, 1894 or in a separate suit.

¶74

(iii) In a case between Sri Prasada Rao Mikkilineni and others Vrs. State of A.P. and

¶75

Page 10 of 15

¶76

others reported in 2000 (4) CCC (SC) 28 in Para No.4 that,

¶77

when, there is dispute about title as also computation of appropriate compensation exist, in that case Land Acquisition officer is directed to make a reference to Appropriate Court.

¶78

(iv) In a case between Sri Narasingha Jena Vrs. State of Orissa reported in (93) 2002 CLT 389 in Para No.5 that,

¶79

once dispute arises with regard to apportionment, Land Acquisition Officer is obliged to make a reference under Section 30 of the LA Act, 1894. He has no jurisdiction to enquire into the title and give a binding decision, which only a Civil Court could do. Therefore, the Land Acquisition Officer in the event of dispute being raised has no jurisdiction to decide the question of title and is obliged to make a reference to the civil Court for adjudication. Since, the Land Acquisition Officer has no jurisdiction to decide the question of title, it is not necessary for him to refer to the documents to find out the title in respect of any claim.

¶80

(v) In a case between Neelagangavva Vrs. Basayya (deceased) by LRs. and another reported in II (2005) Civil Law Times 69 (Karnataka) in Para Nos.7 and 8 that,

¶81

When dispute arising after award filing of award, it is open to appellant to seek reference under Section 30 of the L.A. Act, 1894 or to institute appropriate proceeding to claim her share in

¶82

Page 11 of 15

¶83

compensation awarded by reference Court on the ground that, she is also entitled for share in properties.

¶84

(vi) In a case between Bighnaraj Sai Vrs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Lower Suktel Irrigation Project, Bolangir and others reported in 2007 (I) OLR 44 in Para No.12 that,

¶85

a person, who has right in acquired property has a locus standi to make an application under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for reference of dispute.

¶86

12. In the ratio of the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Courts

¶87

and Apex Court, the propositions of law has already been clarified that, a person, who has right or interest in the acquired land has locus standi to make an application for reference of the dispute as per Section 30 and 18 of the LA Act, 1894 to the Civil Court.

¶88

The law has also further been clarified in the ratio of the above decisions that, once a dispute arises with regard to the apportionment and enhancement of the compensation amount, the Land Acquisition Officer is duty bound to make a reference to the said matter to the Civil Court for its adjudication, but, the Land Acquisition Officer has no jurisdiction to enquire into the title of the properties referring to the documents and to give a

¶89

Page 12 of 15

¶90

finding relating to the title of the Parties in respect of the said acquired properties like a Civil Court.

¶91

For which, in the event of a dispute being raised concerning the apportionment and enhancement of the awarded

¶92

compensation amount of the acquired properties, the Land Acquisition Officer like the O.P. No.2 in these revisions at hand has no jurisdiction to decide the disputed question of title of the acquired properties, but, to make a reference to the Civil Court for adjudication. Because, the Land Acquisition Officer has no authority or jurisdiction under law to decide the disputed question of title of the acquired properties and the Land Acquisition Officer has no power under law to give a finding in respect of the disputed title of the acquired properties referring the documents.

¶93

13. Here in these matters at hand, when, there is serious dispute between the Petitioners, O.P. Nos.6 to 9 and O.P. Nos.3 to 5 relating to the title as well as compensation amount of the acquired properties, then at this juncture, there was no other alternative for the Land Acquisition Officer, Angul (O.P. No.2) , but, to refer the said disputed matters between the Parties as per

¶94

Page 13 of 15

¶95

Section 30, 18 read with Section 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the Civil Court for its proper adjudication.

¶96

For which, the impugned order i.e. to the rejection of the application of the Petitioners for referring the matter under Section 10 and 18 read with Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 passed on dated 19.11.2013 (Annexure-1) in Misc. Case No.4 of 2013 by the Land Acquisition Officer, Angul (O.P. No.2) held as not in inconformity with law.

¶97

Therefore, the said impugned order dated 19.11.2013 (Annexure-1) passed in Misc. Case No.4 of 2013 by the O.P. No.2 cannot be sustainable under law.

¶98

14. As such, there is justification under law for making interference with the impugned order dated 19.11.2013 (Annexure-1) passed in Misc. Case No.4 of 2013 by the Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Special Land Acquisition Officer, Angul (O.P. No.2) through these revisions filed by the Petitioners.

¶99

15. Therefore, there is merit in the revisions filed by the Petitioners. The same must succeed.

¶100

16. In result, both the revisions filed by the Petitioner are allowed on contest.

¶101

Page 14 of 15

¶102

17. The impugned order dated 19.11.2013 (Annexure-1) passed

¶103

in Misc. Case No.4 of 2013 by the Land Acquisition Officer-cum-

¶104

Special Land Acquisition Officer, Angul (O.P. No.2) is set aside.

¶105

18. The Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Special Land Acquisition Officer, Angul (O.P. No.2) is directed to refer the matters of dispute between the Parties concerning the apportionment and enhancement of the awarded compensation amount as per Section 30 and 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the local jurisdictional Civil Court for its proper adjudication as per law and the Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Special Land Acquisition Officer, Angul (O.P. No.2) shall disburse the compensation amount only on the basis of the decisions made by the Civil Court.

¶106

19. Registry is directed to communicate the copy of this judgment to the Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Special Land Acquisition Officer, Angul (O.P. No.2) immediately.

¶107

20. As such, both the revisions filed by the Petitioners are disposed of finally.

¶108

(ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA)

¶109

Signature Not Verified

¶110

JUDGE

¶111

Digitally Signed Signed by: BINAYAK SAHOO High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Reason: Authentication 24.09.2025// Binayak Sahoo Location: High Court of Orissa, C Jr. Stenographer utta ck Date: 25-Sep-2025 17:43:56

¶112

Page 15 of 15

Tansukha Rai Agarwal v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tansukha Rai Agarwal v. State

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

Ratikanta Nath Vs Madhabananda Biswal

M/S.S.N.Mohanty Vs State of Orissa

Satyanarayana Rajguru Mohapatra Vs State of Odisha

Dibakar Vs Nuduri

Dibakar Vs Nuduri

Achyuta Vs Lachanan Balaji Deb