Allowed¶36

Basanta Jena v. L.a.Collector,Bhadra

Orissa HC5 Feb 2025LAA/78/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Land acquisition compensation; Orissa High Court; Section 54 Land Acquisition Act 1894 appeal; condonation of delay of 13 years 28 days; parity with similarly situated land oustees; IDCO requisition for Dharani Sugar and Chemicals Limited, Dhamnagar Tahasil (Helpur, Majurigadia, Pahimahura); compensation fixed at Rs.1,50,000 per acre with statutory benefits payable within six weeks; appeal covered by earlier LAA judgments of the same court.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed to the extent that the Appellants are held entitled to compensation @ Rs.1,50,000/- per acre with all other statutory benefits, to be computed and paid within six weeks from communication/production of the certified copy of the order; appeal stands disposed of with no order as to costs. ¶36

Basanta Jena Vs L.a.Collector,Bhadra — Land Acquisition | Orissa HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 13 years & 28 days in filing the appeal should be condoned. +1 more

¶16

Ratio / Principle

The Appellants (claimants before the Referral Court) are entitled to compensation @ Rs.1,50,000/- per acre for acquiring their land, the appeal being covered by earlier judgments of this Court regarding similarly situated land oustees.

¶36

Key takeaways

The compensation @ Rs.1,50,000/- per acre is to 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 the order.ratio¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

LAA No.78 of 2011, Basanta Jena v. Land Acquisition Collector, Bhadrak (High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, M.S. Raman, J., 05.02.2025): Appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against order dated 28.07.1998 of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhadrak (Referral Court) in L.A. Misc. Case No.340 of 1996, concerning acquisition of Ac.217.71 decimals in Villages Helpur, Majurigadia and Pahimahura (Dhamnagar Tahasil) under Section 4(1) notifications published on different dates, on requisition of IDCO for Dharani Sugar and Chemicals Limited. Delay of 13 years & 28 days in filing was condoned earlier (Order No.16 dated 09.01.2025 in Misc. Case No.172 of 2011) subject to cost of Rs.1,500/- to the High Court Bar Association, which the appellant deposited. Holding the appeal squarely covered by coordinate-Bench decisions in L.A.A. No.4 of 2012, L.A.A. Nos.143 and 144 of 2010 (both dated 20.06.2022), L.A.A. No.71 of 2011 (13.03.2024), LAA No.61 of 2011 (09.08.2024) and LAA No.65 of 2011 (13.12.2024) — same kissam of land, same village, same purpose, though notifications were published on different dates — the Court held the Appellants entitled to compensation @ Rs.1,50,000/- per acre with all statutory benefits, payable within six weeks; appeal allowed to that extent and disposed of, with no order as to costs.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK LAA No.78 of 2011

¶2

Basanta Jena

¶3

…. Appellant

¶4

Mr. Niranjan Panda-1, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

Land Acquisition Collector, Bhadrak

¶7

…. Respondent Mr. Jayant Kumar Bal, AGA

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

Order No.

ORDER

05.02.2025

This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.

¶15

On perusal of Office Note, it is revealed that objection to Misc. Case No.172 of 2011 has not been filed by the Respondent. However, on perusal of Order No.16, dated 09.01.2025, this Court has passed the following order in I.A. No.172 of 2011:-

¶16

“2. This is an application for condonation of delay of 13 years & 28 days in filing the Appeal.

¶17

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.

¶18

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

¶19

Page 1 of 4

¶20

similarly situated land oustee from the same village after delay of 13 years 5 months was admitted on payment of cost.

¶21

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.

¶22

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 two weeks from today.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

2.1. This Court in Order No.18 vide order dated 09.01.2025 at paragraph-2 passed the following order:-

¶26

“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.172 of 2011 .”

¶27

Today, when the matter was taken up, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant furnished copy of memo enclosing therewith Acknowledgement Slip (Receipt No.4497/2025) dated

¶28

Page 2 of 4

¶29

15.01.2025 of Registry of this Court and copy of receipt issued by the Office of the High Court Bar Association, showing deposit of amount as directed in the order of this Court. He submitted that he has complied with order No.16, dated 09.01.2025 passed in Misc. Case No.172 of 2011.

¶30

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 28.07.1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhadrak (hereinafter referred to as “Referral Court”), in L.A. Misc. Case No.340 of 1996.

¶31

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.

¶32

Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant further submits, this Appeal is covered by the judgments passed by the

¶33

Page 3 of 4

¶34

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 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.

¶35

Copies of the said judgments and order being supplied to the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-Respondent, after examining the said judgments and orders, 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, 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.

¶36

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

¶37

Signature Not Verified

¶38

Digitally Signed Signed by: LAXMIKANT MOHAPATRA Designation: Senior Stenographer Laxmikant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 05-Feb-2025 18:14:31

¶39

(M.S. Raman) Judge

¶40

Page 4 of 4

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 28.07.1998 in L.A. Misc. Case No.340 of 1996 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhadrak (Referral Court), challenged in this appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.¶30
Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhadrak · 28.07.1998
Prior proceeding
Condonation application (Misc. Case No.172 of 2011 / I.A. No.172 of 2011) explaining delay of 13 years & 28 days: certified copy of the judgment had been given to late counsel N.K. Dash, who died on 26.1.2000; the appellant learnt in 2011 that the appeal had not been filed and obtained a fresh certified copy.¶16
Prior proceeding
By Order No.16 dated 09.01.2025 in Misc. Case No.172 of 2011, the delay in filing the appeal was condoned subject to payment of cost of Rs.1,500/- to the High Court Bar Association within two weeks, noting that a similarly situated land oustee's appeal (LAA No.05 of 2012) had been admitted after condonation of similar delay.¶22
Prior proceeding
By Order No.18 dated 09.01.2025, the matter was listed in the week commencing 27.01.2025 at the request of State counsel, subject to payment of cost by the appellant and deposit of the receipt with the Registry.¶26
Prior proceeding
On 05.02.2025, counsel for the appellant furnished a memo with Acknowledgement Slip (Receipt No.4497/2025 dated 15.01.2025) of the Registry and a receipt of the High Court Bar Association showing deposit of the cost as directed.¶29
Prior proceeding
Parity basis recorded: State counsel, after examining the order in Misc. Case No.08 of 2012 arising out of LAA No.05 of 2012, admitted the present appellant's case is similar, with similar period of delay and similar explanation already accepted and condoned.¶21
Prior proceeding
Background of acquisition: pursuant to preliminary notifications under Section 4(1) published on different dates in the Orissa Gazette (Extraordinary), lands measuring Ac.217.71 decimals in Villages Helpur, Majurigadia and Pahimahura under Dhamnagar Tahasil were acquired by the State on requisition of IDCO for establishment of Dharani Sugar and Chemicals Limited.¶31

Basanta Jena v. L.a.Collector,Bhadra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Basanta Jena v. L.a.Collector,Bhadra

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.

Pradip Ku.Muduli Vs Omdc Ltd.

Prafulla Ku.Bhatra Vs State of Orissa