Bhagirathi Sahoo Vs Lao Cum Competent Authority, Keonjhar — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Bhagirathi Sahoo Vs Lao Cum Competent Authority, Keonjhar — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to the Petitioner to raise objection as to the correctness of the recorded statement before the Land Acquisition Officer and Competent Authority, NH-06 (49), Keonjhar within two weeks; such objection to be considered in accordance with law with opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. No opinion expressed on the merits of either party.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned notices requiring the Petitioner to refund land-acquisition compensation of Rs.6,64,944/- should be set aside, in light of the recorded statement that the Petitioner had agreed to refund. +1 more

Court's answer

This Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the merit of the case of either party.

Ratio / Principle

The correctness of the recording of a statement made by any party before an Authority/Court can only be raised before the said Authority/Court.

Key takeaways

The writ petition is disposed of with an observation that the Petitioner, if so advised, may raise objection with regard to the correctness of the recording before the Land Acquisition Officer and Competent Authority, NH-06 (49), Keonjhar.ratio¶23
If such an objection is raised within a period of two weeks, it shall be considered in accordance with law, giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Orissa High Court, Cuttack (W.P.(C) No. 14345 of 2023, decided 09.10.2025; Coram: Justices K.R. Mohapatra and Savitri Ratho). Bhagirathi Sahoo challenged Notice No. 819 dated 02.02.2023 (Annexure-6) and Notice No. 841 dated 24.04.2023 (Annexure-10) issued by the Competent Authority-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, NH-06 (49), Keonjhar, requiring him to appear in the matter of, and then to refund within 15 days, compensation of Rs.6,64,944/-. The Authority's order of 24.04.2023, pursuant to which the second notice issued, recorded that the Petitioner had agreed to refund after field verification; counsel for the Petitioner contended the recording was erroneous. Held: the correctness of the recording of a statement made by any party before an Authority/Court can only be raised before the said Authority/Court. The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the Petitioner to raise the objection before the said Authority within two weeks, to be considered in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties; the Court expressly reserved the merits of both sides.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 14345 of 2023

Bhagirathi Sahoo

…. Petitioner

Mr. Pradeep Kumar Panda, Advocate

-versus-

1. Land Acquisition Officer-cumCompetent Authority, National Highways No.6 (49), Keonjhar

2. Project Director, NHAI No. 6 (49), Project Implementation Unit, Badadera, Keonjhar

3. Samarendra Behera

…. Opposite Parties Mr. Asim Kishore Pal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Amitav Das, Senior Advocate (For O.Ps No. 1 and 2-NHAI) Mr. Digambar Sethi, Advocate (For O.P. No. 3)

CORAM:

JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO

Order No. ORDER

08.

09.10.2025

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

The Petitioner in this writ application seeks to assail the Notice No. 819 dated 2^nd February, 2023 vide Annexure-6 issued by the Competent Authority-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, National Highways-06 (49), Keonjhar requiring the Petitioner to appear on 9^th February, 2023 in the matter of refund of compensation amount of Rs.6,64,944/-. The Petitioner also assails the Notice No. 841 dated 24^th April, 2023 vide Annexure10 issued by the said Authority directing the Petitioner to refund the aforesaid compensation amount within 15 days.

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that the Notice under Annexure-10 was issued pursuant to order dated 24^th April, 2023 passed by the

Page 1 of 2

Land Acquisition Officer and Competent Authority, NH-06 (49), Keonjhar. In the said order, it is recorded as under:-

“During my hearing, Sri Bhagirathi Sahoo has also agreed to refund the said compensation amount after due field verification which was also conducted in presence of both Sri Bhagirathi Sahoo and Sri Somerendra Behera…”

Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the Petitioner, however, submits that Sri Bhagirathi Sahoo-Petitioner had never agreed to refund the compensation amount for which the above observation by the Competent Authority is erroneous.

In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the correctness of recording of a statement made by any party before an Authority/Court can only be raised before the said Authority/Court.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with an observation that the Petitioner, if so advised, may raise objection with regard to correctness of the recording as aforesaid before the Land Acquisition Officer and Competent Authority, NH-06 (49), Keonjhar.

If such an objection is raised within a period of two weeks hence, the same shall be considered in accordance with law, giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to merit of the case of either party.

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: PUSPANJALI MOHAPATRA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court Date: 09-Oct-2025 19:03:32 puspa

(Savitri Ratho) Judge

Page 2 of 2