Gokul Ganda@Gardia Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer

¶1

A.F.R.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK

¶3

LAA No.65 of 2015

¶4

An application under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

¶5

¶6

Gokul Ganda @ Gardia (since dead), represented by his Legal Representatives Usha Gardia and others … … Appellants

¶7

-Versus-

¶8

Special Land Acquisition Officer, Ultra Mega Power Project, Sundargarh and others … … Respondents For Appellants : Mr. S. K. Sahoo, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. G. N. Sahu, Advocate (Respondent nos.3 to 9) Mr. A. Sethy, ASC (For Respondent nos.1 and 2)

¶9

¶10

P R E S E N T:

¶11

THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO

¶12

------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date of hearing & Judgment : 01.05.2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶13

M.S.SAHOO, J. The appeal has been filed by the appellant under

¶14

Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In the appeal challenge is to the judgment dated 23.09.2013 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sundargarh in

¶15

Page 1 of 10

¶16

Land Acquisition Reference Case No.313 of 2013 arising

¶17

out of L.A. Case No.11 of 2010 of Special Land Acquisition Officer (LAO), Ultra Mega Power Project (UMPP), Sundargarh. The appellant-Gokul Ganda @ Gardia as mentioned in the cause title unfortunately passed away during pendency of this appeal and he has been substituted by his legal representatives, namely, 1(a), 1(b), 1(c), 1(d) and 1(e) being represented before this Court in the appeal by the learned counsel, Mr. Sahoo.

¶18

2. The judgment dated 23.09.2015 was post reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 made by the Spl. LAO, UMPP, Sundargarh after a dispute arose. The predecessor-in-interest of the appellants, i.e., the deceased-appellant raised a dispute regarding apportionment of compensation amount of Rs.67,73,689/- that was awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, UMPP, Sundargarh in L.A. Case No.11 of 2010, with respect to acquisition of land measuring an area of Ac.2.980 decimals under ‘Hal khata’ no.110 of mouza-Kirei for the Ultra Mega Power Project, Bhedabahal in the district of Sundargarh.

¶19

LAA No.65 of 2015 Page 2 of 10

¶20

3. Initially the award of compensation was in favour of Gokul Gardia purportedly for acquisition of the land of his ‘father’ Sriram Ganda, S/o. Trilochana Ganda of village Kirei. In the proceeding; L.A. Reference Case No.313 of 2013 before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sundargarh, Sakuntala Ganda, W/o- Late Krushna Kansrali was the petitioner. After she passed away she was substituted by her legal heirs. The appellant (since deceased) was the opposite party no.3 in the proceeding before the learned Senior Civil Judge.

¶21

4. Sakuntala Ganda claimed herself to be the sole surviving legal heir of her brother-Sriram Ganda whose land was acquired. She filed W.P.(C) No.24112 of 2013 claiming herself to be the sole legal heir to be entitled to the LA Compensation awarded in favour of Late Sriram Ganda who died. She raised a dispute regarding the relationship between the awardee Gokul Gardia @ Ganda and the land oustee Sriram Ganda. This Court directed the Spl. LAO to refer the matter to the Civil Court. The Land Acquisition Officer, Sundargarh referred the matter to the Civil Court under Section 30 of L.A. Act, 1894.

¶22

LAA No.65 of 2015 Page 3 of 10

¶23

It was the case of the Sakuntala (petitioner before the learned Senior Civil Judge) that Sriram who died issueless was no way related to the appellant (since deceased) Gokul, but no action was taken by the Land Acquisition Officer, but award was made in favour of Gokul claiming to be the son of Sriram. Sakuntala preferred W.P.(C) No.24112 of 2013. This Court by order dated 10.12.2013 disposed of the writ petition directing the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter to the Civil Court under Section 30 of the L.A. Act. After the reference was made and the matter was taken up for adjudication.

¶24

5. It was alleged in the petition before the Senior Civil Judge by the petitioner-Sakuntala that Gokul Gardia manipulated documents like voter identity card, aadhar card claiming himself to be the natural son of Sriram and sold some land out of khata no.110 impersonating to be the son of Sriram, but Gokul Gardia has no right, title and interest over the property of Sriram. As the original petitioner-Sakuntala died on 05.07.2014, she was substituted as indicated above.

¶25

LAA No.65 of 2015 Page 4 of 10

¶26

6. The opposite party no.3 in the reference, the present appellant-Gokul filed his show cause denying the claim of the petitioner. He contended that he is ‘Gokul Gardia’. He stated ‘Gokul Ganda’ and ‘Gokul Gardia’ are one and the same person. He being the son of late Sriram Ganda and entitled for the compensation awarded. He relied on the sale deeds executed by him describing himself to be the son of Sriram. He denied the allegation in the petition that he is actually son of Mangulu Gardia. Before the Senior Civil Judge, the substituted petitioners, i.e., legal heirs examined four witnesses including petitioner 1(a). Mandara Tanty (Respondent no.3 in the present appeal) who adduced evidence as P.W.1, scribe of

¶27

a will made by Sriram in favour of Sakuntala was examined as P.W.4. Further, the petitioners (present respondents) proved 8 numbers of documents. The documents such as certified copy of voter identity card (Electoral Photo Identity Card) of opposite party no.3 (present appellant) was produced and marked without objection as Ext.3 by the respondent-petitioners in the Referral Court.

¶28

LAA No.65 of 2015 Page 5 of 10

¶29

7. The appellant-opposite party no.3 produced his voter identity card marked as Ext.A, ‘Aadhar Card’ marked as Ext.B and BPL Card marked as Ext.C. The case of the appellant-opposite party no.3 is that in all these cards his father’s name has been mentioned as Sriram Ganda.

¶30

8. The evidentiary value of Ext.3 has been dealt with paragraph-14 (internal page-14) of the judgment. The voter identity card of the appellant-opposite party no.3 was produced and proved mentioning his name to be Gokul Garida, Son of Mangalu Gardia of village Kirei, P.S./Dist-Sundargarh, No-OR/20/135/222155. The said exhibit is also available in the LCR.

¶31

9. The petitioners, present respondents produced the copy of the School admission register marked as Ext-8, indicating the admission of the appellant-opposite party no.3 in the School which is a 50 years old public document. The copy of the School Admission Register was produced certified by the Headmaster Kirei Primary School, Kirei, Sundargarh a public servant and the certificate was issued in due discharge of his public duty.

¶32

LAA No.65 of 2015 Page 6 of 10

¶33

Entry at Sl. No.192 of the School Admission Register referred to Gokul Gardia, father’s name being Mangulu Gardia. Apparently, the learned counsel for appellantopposite party no.3 raised objection to the admission register being marked as exhibit. But no rebuttal evidence was adduced on behalf of opposite party no.3 to refute the evidentiary value of said exhibit with the entries or to disbelieve its genuineness or authenticity of the entries.

¶34

10. To rely on the school admission register learned referral court applied the principle laid down in the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mahila

¶35

Bajrangi (dead) through L.Rs and others v. Badribai

¶36

and another; 2013 AIR SCW 129: (2003) 2SCC 464. In

¶37

Mahila Bajrangi , it has been held by the Supreme Court that “… Entries in School Admission Register and School Leaving Certificate describing deceased as father of defendant made long before dispute arose can be relied on… .”

¶38

11. Regarding admissibility of the entries in the school admission register though the officer who made the entry

¶39

LAA No.65 of 2015 Page 7 of 10

¶40

is not produced and examined as witness the learned referral Court also relied on Harpal Singh and another v. State of Himachal Pradesh : AIR 1981 SC 361: (1981) 1 SCC 560 . In Harpal Singh (para-3 of SCC print) rejecting the contention that in the absence of examination of the officer concerned who recorded the entry, the register is inadmissible in evidence the Supreme Court held “… We cannot agree with him for the simple reason that the entry was made by the concerned official in the discharge of his official duties, that it is therefore clearly admissible under Section 35 of the Evidence Act and that it is not necessary for the prosecution to examine its author. …”

¶41

12. The learned referral court further observed that assuming the claim of the appellant-opposite party no.3 may be correct that he is son of Sriram Ganda, he did not adduce any positive evidence to prove the alleged fact apart from producing his Aadhar Card, BPL Card or Voter identity card. In fact two voter identity cards were produced. The first one being that of Gokul Gardia, S/o. Mangulu Gardia, produced by the respondent-petitioners.

¶42

LAA No.65 of 2015 Page 8 of 10

¶43

The opposite party no.3-appellant did not bring any witness, being his family member, to depose that he is son of late Sriram Ganda.

¶44

13. It has also to be considered that ‘Aadhar Card’, ‘BPL Card’ or ‘Voter Identity’ card are documents which are issued by the respective issuing authority as per the entries made by the person who applies for issuance of such documents. None of the issuing authority or any other person were examined as witnesses on behalf of appellant-opposite party no.3 to state that the entries were verified and the Gokul Gardia is son of Sriram Ganda.

¶45

14. Having gone through the pleadings, evidence and materials on record available in the LCR, pleadings in the appeal and after hearing the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and respondents and relying upon and applying the principle laid down in Mahila Bajrangi (supra) , it is held that the judgment dated 23.09.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sundargarh is just and proper and is not to be interfered with and is confirmed in appeal.

¶46

LAA No.65 of 2015 Page 9 of 10

¶47

15. Accordingly, the LAA is dismissed.

¶48

The interim orders passed earlier stand vacated. In

¶49

the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.

¶50

…………………… M.S. Sahoo, J.

¶51

Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 1^st May, 2025/Gs/Radha