Gayadhar Barik Vs La.Collector,Bhadrak

3. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Appellant and also it is averred in the Petition that long before the expiry of limitation period the certified copy of the judgment had been given to the counsel namely, late N.K. Dash for filing of the Appeal. The Appellant was under bona fide impression that the Appeal was filed. Late N.K. Dash died on 26.1.2000. In the year 2011 the Appellant came to know that Appeal has not been filed. Hence a fresh certified copy of the impugned judgment/award was obtained and the matter was entrusted to a new counsel for filing of the Appeal. 4. In course of hearing, learned Counsel for the Appellant, relying on the copy of the order dated 07.08.2012 passed in Misc. Case No.08 of 2012, arising out of LAA No.05 of 2012, submits that Appeal filed by similarly situated land oustee from the same village

¶16

Page 1 of 4

¶17

after delay of 13 years 5 months was admitted on payment of cost.

¶18

5. Learned Counsel for the State, after examining the order passed in Misc. Case No.08 of 2012, arising out of LAA No.05 of 2012, admits that the case of the present Appellant is similar to the Appellant in LAA No.05 of 2012, in which similar period of delay, with similar explanation, was accepted and the delay was condoned.

¶19

6. In the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of the fact that Appeal filed by similarly situated land oustee has been admitted after condonation of delay, as stated above, prayer in this application for condonation of delay is allowed. Delay in filing the Appeal is condoned subject to payment of cost of Rs.1,500/- (Rupees one thousand five hundred) by the Appellant to the High Court Bar Association within a period four weeks from today.

¶20

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

¶21

8. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.”

¶22

2.1. This Court at paragraph-2 of Order No.21, dated 24.12.2024 observed as follows:-

¶23

“2. The matter be listed in the week commencing from 27^th January, 2025, as prayed by the learned Counsel for the State, subject to payment of cost by the Appellant and deposit of receipt with the Registry before the next date of listing in terms of the order passed in I.A. No.155 of 2011 .”

¶24

Today, when the matter was taken up, Office Note shows that “receipt showing payment of cost of Rs.1,500/- by the Appellant to the High Court Bar Association is received”. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that in compliance of

¶25

Page 2 of 4

¶26

this Court’s order dated 24.12.2024 passed in Misc. Case No.155 of 2011, he has deposited the cost of Rs.1,500/- with the High Court Bar Association and thereby complied with the said order.

¶27

Therefore, on consent of the counsel for the respective parties this Court proceeded to hear the matter. 5. Heard Mr. Niranjan Panda-1, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant and Mr. Jayant Kumar Bal, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-Respondent. 6. The present Appeal has been preferred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, shortly, L.A. Act, 1894, challenging order dated 03.04.1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhadrak (hereinafter referred to as “Referral Court”), in L.A. Misc. Case No.319 of 1996. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant draw attention of this Court to Paragraph-2 of the impugned order, wherein it has been clearly mentioned that in terms of various preliminary notifications made under Section 4(1) of the Act, 1894, published on different dates in Orissa Gazette, Extraordinary, lands measuring an area of Ac.217.71 decimals in three Villages, Helpur, Majurigadia and Pahimahura, under Dhamnagar Tahasil, were acquired by the State on requisition of IDCO for establishment of a Private Sugar Factory, namely, Dharani Sugar and Chemicals Limited in Mouza Majurigadia.

¶28

Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant further submits, this Appeal is covered by the judgments passed by the coordinate Bench in L.A.A. No.4 of 2012, dated 20.06.2022 and L.A.A. No.143 of 2010, L.A.A. No.144 of 2010, both dated

¶29

Page 3 of 4

¶30

20.06.2022, order dated 13.03.2024 passed in L.A.A. No.71 of 2011, order passed by this Court dated 09.08.2024 in LAA No.61 of 2011 and order dated 13.12.2024 in LAA No.65 of 2011.

¶31

Copies of the said judgments and order being supplied to the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-Respondent, on examining the same, learned Additional Government Advocate does not dispute the said submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the Appellant. He conceded that the present appeal is squarely covered by the said judgments passed by this Court, as the kissam of the land in question being same and situated in the same village so also acquired for the same purpose, though notifications made under Section 4(1) of the Act, 1894, were published on different dates.

¶32

Accordingly, this Appeal stands disposed of holding that the Appellants (claimants before the Referral Court) are entitled to compensation @ Rs.1,50,000/- per acre for acquiring their land. Accordingly, the compensation @ Rs.1,50,000/- per acre be computed and paid to the Appellants with all other statutory benefits within a period of six weeks from the date of communication/production of the certified copy of this order.

¶33

The Appeal is allowed to the extent, as indicated above, and stands disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶34

(M.S. Raman) Judge

¶35

Laxmikant

¶36

Signature Not Verified

¶37

Digitally Signed Signed by: LAXMIKANT MOHAPATRA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 05-Feb-2025 18:14:32

¶38

Page 4 of 4

Gayadhar Barik v. La.Collector,Bhadrak

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gayadhar Barik v. La.Collector,Bhadrak

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

Lopamudra Kar Vs Swarnaprava Tripathy

Somanath Khilo Vs Laxman Khemudu

Namita Mohananda Vs Tripati Mohananda

Basanta Kumar Panigrahi Vs D.Prashanta Kumar Reddy, M.D, Osic Ltd.

Basanta Jena Vs L.a.Collector,Bhadra

Pradip Ku.Muduli Vs Omdc Ltd.