Gautam Chandan Vs State of Odisha

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Goutam Chandan challenging the order dated 16.01.2025 of the opposite party no.4, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Lower Suktel Irrigation Project, Bolangir in not entertaining the application filed by the petitioner under section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereafter ‘2013 Act’) for redetermination of the award under section 23 of the L.A. Act on the ground that the petitioner has not filed the petition within the stipulated

¶18

Page 1 of 4

¶19

period of time and accordingly, held that the claim of the petitioner to forward the petition to the LARR Authority cannot be considered and summarily rejected.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner placed the impugned order, which is dated 15.01.2025 but forwarded to the petitioner on 16.01.2025, which indicates that the award was passed on 22.02.2023 and the application for reference to LARR Authority was received on 24.08.2023 by the Office of opposite party no.4.

¶21

The operative part of the order reads as follows:“According to section 64 of the RFCTLAR&R Act, 2013, the petitioners should have filed applications within a period of six weeks from the date of passing of award for making a reference to the appropriate Authority or within six weeks of receipt of notice under section 21. The date of filing of petition did not lie within the stipulated period of six weeks from the date of passing of award or Six weeks from date of publication of notice u/s-21. Rather, date of filling of petition took place much after the expiry of the said period meant for filing petition in order to make a reference to appropriate Authority.

¶22

Therefore, the above application cannot be entertained as the said period has already

¶23

Page 2 of 4

¶24

been expired.”

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the second proviso to sub-section (2) of section 64 of 2013 Act empowers the Collector to entertain an application after expiry of the periods as mentioned under Clause (a) and (b) of sub-section (2) of section 64 of 2013 Act within a further period of one year, if he is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within the period specified in the first proviso.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the application under section 64 of the 2013 Act vide Annexure-3, wherein it is indicated in paragraph-14 that the Special L.A.O. has awarded the cost of the land, house, well and trees behind the back of the petitioner without giving him opportunity of hearing against his consent and will. The petitioner made verbal and written complaint about the valuation of land and trees, as he is innocent, illiterate and unknown person about the practice and procedure. But the Special L.A.O. has ignored the request of the petitioner.

¶27

Learned counsel further submitted that similar order has been passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 12950 of 2025 as per order dated 13.05.2025 and therefore, the same order may be passed in the present case.

¶28

A copy of the aforesaid order was handed over to the learned counsel for the State, who raises no

¶29

Page 3 of 4

¶30

objection if the same order is passed in this case.

¶31

We are of the view that the claim of the petitioner to forward the petition under the LARR Authority should not have been rejected in a mechanical manner particularly when some reason has been assigned in paragraph-14 and the opportunity should have been afforded to the petitioner to explain the delay by filing a further affidavit, which has not been done in this case. Therefore, while setting aside the impugned order dated 15.01.2025, we remit the matter back to the opposite party no.4, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Lower Suktel Irrigation Project, Bolangir for fresh consideration in accordance with law providing the opportunity to the petitioner to file an affidavit explaining the sufficient cause for not filing the written application under section 64 of the 2013 Act within the period specified in the first proviso. We are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioner.

¶32

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶33

Issue urgent certified copy as per Rules.

( S.K. Sahoo)

Judge

( S.S. Mishra)

Judge Signature Not Verified