Golak Bihari Sahoo Vs Union of India — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Golak Bihari Sahoo Vs Union of India — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order dated 30/31.01.2025 (Annexure-9) set aside; matter remitted to the Tahasildar, Jagatsinghpur-cum-Competent Authority, Land Acquisition for National Highway-55 (Opposite Party No.3) to decide the Petitioners' objection under Section 3-C afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing, within three weeks from production of certified copy of the order, with the decision to be communicated to the Petitioners forthwith; urgent certified copy ordered on proper application.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 30/31.01.2025 (Annexure-9) passed by the Competent Authority, Land Acquisition without considering the Petitioners' objection under Section 3-C of the Act is sustainable. +1 more

Court's answer

The impugned order under Annexure-9 does not disclose that the objection of the Petitioners was taken into consideration.

Ratio / Principle

Section 3-C of the Act does not empower the Competent Authority to authorize any other Officer to adjudicate the objection under Section 3-C of the Act.

Key takeaways

The impugned order under Annexure-9 is not sustainable and is set aside; the matter is remitted to the Tahasildar, Jagatsinghpur-cum-Competent Authority, Land Acquisition for National Highway-55 (Opposite Party No.3) to consider the Petitioners' Section 3-C objection afresh, giving them an opportunity of hearing, and to decide within three weeks from production of certified copy of the order, communicating the decision forthwith.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

National Highways Act, 1956 — Sections 3-A and 3-C — Land acquisition for National Highway-55 — Objection under Section 3-C heard by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, National Highway-55, authorized by the Tahasildar, Jagatsinghpur-cum-Competent Authority who was on law and order duty — Order dated 30/31.01.2025 (Annexure-9) passed without disclosing consideration of the objectors' objection — Held: Section 3-C of the Act does not empower the Competent Authority to authorize any other Officer to adjudicate a Section 3-C objection; impugned order not sustainable and set aside; matter remitted to Opposite Party No.3 to consider the objection afresh with opportunity of hearing and decide within three weeks from production of certified copy, communicating the decision forthwith. Writ petition disposed of.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.16886 OF 2025

Golak Bihari Sahoo and Others

Petitioners

Mr. Surya Mohapatra. Advocate

-versus-

Union of India and Others

…. Opp. Parties Mr.Swayambhu Mishra, Additional Standing Counsel

CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO ORDER 24.09.2025

Order No.

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2 . It is submitted by Mr.Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel that counter affidavit has been E-filed on 23^rd September, 2025 and copy of the same has been served on Mr.Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioners.

2.1. The copy of the counter affidavit is requisitioned from the Registry and is taken on record.

Petitioners, in this writ petition, seek to assail the order dated 30/31.01.2025 passed by the Tahasildar, Jagatsinghpurcum- Competent Authority, Land Acquisition for National Highway-55 (Annexure-9).

It is submitted by Mr.Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioners that pursuant to a notification under Section 3-A of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for brevity, ‘the Act’), the Petitioners submitted their objections under Section 3-C of the Act. But without considering their objection and without

Page 1 of 3

affording an opportunity of hearing, order under Annexure-9 has been passed.

Taking into consideration the grievance of the Petitioners, this Court vide order dated 11.09.2025 directed the learned State Counsel to take instruction in the matter.

Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel referring to the counter affidavit filed by the Tahasildar, Jagatsinghpur-cum-Competent Authority, Land Acquisition for National Highway-55 submits that pursuant to the notification under Section 3-A of the Act, the Petitioner had submitted objection. Accordingly, notice dated 22.01.2025 was issued to the Petitioners to appear before the Competent Authority on 30^th January, 2025.

6.1. On the said date, the Tahasildar, Jagatsingpur-cumCompetent Authority was on law and order duty and thus, he authorized the Special Land Acquisition Officer, National Highway-55 to take up the hearing. Upon hearing the Petitioners, the impugned order under Annexure-9 was passed.

Mr.Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioners vehemently objects to the same and submits that though he was present in the Office of the Tahasildar, Jagatsinghpur but he was absent on the said date in his Office. Expecting that they will be communicated with the next date of hearing of their objection, they left the Office. He, therefore, prays for setting aside the impugned order under Annexure-9, to direct the Competent Authority, Land Acquisition to take up hearing on their objection afresh and pass a reasoned order thereon giving them an opportunity of hearing.

Page 2 of 3

Taking note of the submission made by learned counsel for the Petitioners, this Court finds that the objection under Section 3-C of the Act was not considered by the Competent Authority, Land Acquisition. The Competent Authority stated to have been authorized the Special Land Acquisition Officer, National Highways to hear the objection and pass orders.

Section 3-C of the Act does not empower the Competent Authority to authorize any other Officer to adjudicate the objection under Section 3-C of the Act. Further the impugned order under Annexure-9 does not disclose that the objection of the Petitioners was taken into consideration.

In that view of the matter, the impugned order under Annexure-9 is not sustainable and is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Tahasildar, Jagatsinghpur-cum-Competent Authority, Land Acquisition for National Highway-55 (Opposite Party No.3) to consider the objection of the Petitioners filed under Section 3-C of the Act afresh giving them an opportunity of hearing and to take a decision thereon within a period of three weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The decision taken on the objection of the Petitioners shall be communicated to them forthwith.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

Issue urgent certified copy of this order on proper application.

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: HIMANSU SEKHAR DASH Reason: Authentication Himansu Location: OHC Date: 25-Sep-2025 13:38:39

(Savitri Ratho) Judge

Page 3 of 3