Allowed¶57

Debi Prasad Das v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC14 Jul 2025WP(C)/2692/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P.(C) No.2692 of 2025, High Court of Orissa, 14.07.2025 (K.R. Mohapatra and Savitri Ratho, JJ.): enhancement-of-compensation reference under S.18, Land Acquisition Act 1894 decided without S.20 notice; ex parte confirmation of award under S.11 vitiated; dismissal of S.151 CPC recall petition for 361-day delay also set aside; matter remitted to Civil Judge (SD), Jagatsinghpur for fresh adjudication with hearing; S.20 notice held mandatory; relied on Neelagangabai, State of Mizoram, Rajmani.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed: order dated 06.02.2023 in LA Misc. Case No.352 of 2004 and order dated 07.01.2025 in CMA No.37 of 2024 set aside; reference under Section 18 of the Act remitted to the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagatsinghpur for fresh adjudication with opportunity of hearing to the parties; no order as to costs.

Debi Prasad Das Vs State of Odisha — Land Acquisition | Orissa HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶57

Issue for consideration

Whether the reference in LA Misc. Case No.352 of 2004 was answered without complying with Section 20 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (notice never served on the applicants), thereby vitiating the order dated 06.02.2023 confirming the award under Section 11. +1 more

¶2

Court's answer

Upon receipt of a petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, it is the duty of the Court to serve notice on the parties under Section 20 and provide an opportunity of hearing before passing a final order.

¶40

Ratio / Principle

As the Petitioners in LA Misc. Case No.352 of 2004 had no notice under Section 20 of the Act, which is a mandatory requirement for hearing of a reference under Section 18, the order dated 06.02.2023 passed in that case is vitiated.

¶48

Key takeaways

Since the Petitioners had no notice under Section 20, the learned Civil Judge should have condoned the delay in filing the petition under Section 151 CPC and provided them an opportunity of hearing so that they could participate in the reference under Section 18.ratio¶48
This Court set aside the order dated 06.02.2023 passed in LA Misc. Case No.352 of 2004 and the order dated 07.01.2025 passed in CMA No.37 of 2024.ratio¶49

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Reference under S.18 for enhancement of compensation (LA Misc. Case No.352 of 2004, arising from award dated 20.04.2002 in L.A Case No.05 of 2000) answered ex parte by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagatsinghpur on 06.02.2023 confirming the award under S.11 without ever serving the notice mandated by S.20; subsequent petition under S.151 CPC for recall, filed with 361 days' delay, dismissed for want of sufficient cause (order dated 07.01.2025 in CMA No.37 of 2024). Held: service of notice under S.20 is a mandatory requirement and its non-compliance vitiates the order passed on the reference; the delay ought to have been condoned. Both orders set aside; reference remitted for fresh adjudication with opportunity of hearing to all parties, to be disposed of expeditiously. Reliance placed on Neelagangabai (AIR 1990 SC 1321), State of Mizoram ((1995) 1 SCC 156) and Rajmani ((1996) 5 SCC 701). Writ petition allowed; no costs.

¶1

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 31-Jul-2025 10:44:33

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶3

W.P.(C) No. 2692 OF 2025

¶4

(An application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India)

¶5

¶6

Debi Prasad Das

¶7

…… Petitioner

¶8

-Versus-

¶9

1. State of Odisha, Department of Revenue & Disaster Management, Odisha Secretariat, Bhubaneswar

¶10

2. Land Acquisition Officer, Jagatsinghpur 3. Executive Engineer, Mahanadi South Division, Cuttack

¶11

.… Opp. parties 4. Surendra Nath Mohanty 5. Alok Mohanty 6. Aruna Mohanty 7. Ajaya Mohanty 8. Ananta Prasad Mohanty 9. Rangalata Mohanty 10. Saroj Mohanty 11. Manoj Mohanty .…… Proforma Opp. parties Advocates appeared: For Petitioner : Ms. Namita Pattnaik, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. Sabita Ranjan Pattnaik, Additional Government Advocate (For Opp. Party Nos.1 to 3) CORAM : MR. JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO

¶12

Page 1 of 7

¶13

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 31-Jul-2025 10:44:33

¶14

-----------------------------------------------Heard and disposed of on 14.07.2025 ----------------------------------------------

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

By the Bench;

¶17

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶18

2. The grievance of the Petitioner in this writ petition is with regard to answering the reference by learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Jagatsinghpur in LA Misc. Case No.352 of 2004 without complying with provision under Section 20 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity ‘the Act’).

¶19

3. Ms. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the award for compensation was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Collector, Jagatsinghpur on 20^th April, 2002 in L.A Case No.05 of 2000. Surendra Nath Mohanty, Upendranath Mohanty, Bhajahari Mohanty, Duryodhan Mohanty and the present Petitioner Debi Prasad Das had filed a petition under Section 18 of the Act to refer the matter to the concerned Civil Court for enhancement of compensation. The reference was registered as LA Misc. Case No.352 of 2004 on the file of learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Jagatsighpur.

¶20

4. It is her submission that learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Jagatsinghpur, upon receipt of the reference, was required to issue notice to the parties under Section 20 of the Act for hearing. Although notices were directed to be issued vide order dated 29^th August, 2005, the said reference was adjourned to different dates awaiting SR. Order sheet in L.A. Misc. Case No. 352 of 2004 (Annexure-1) discloses that notice was never served on

¶21

Page 2 of 7

¶22

Signature Not Verified

¶23

Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 31-Jul-2025 10:44:33

¶24

the Petitioners therein. But, learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Jagatsinghpur took up the matter on 6^th February, 2023 for hearing and passed the order (Annexure-2) confirming the award passed under Section 11 of the Act. The Petitioner and Profroma Opposite party No.4 to 11 filed a petition under Section 151 CPC with a prayer to recall order dated 6^th February, 2023 (Annexure-2) and to provide them an opportunity of hearing in the matter. The said petition under Section 151 CPC was registered as CMA No.37 of 2024. Learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Jagatsinghpur vide order dated 7^th January, 2025 (Annexure-5/A), rejected the said petition holding that the Petitioners could not establish sufficient cause for not filing the petition under Section 151 CPC for recall of order dated 6^th February, 2023 within the stipulated period. It was filed with a delay of 361 days. Since the ground stated for condonation of delay in filing the petition under Section 151 CPC was held to be not justified, the said petition for condonation of delay was rejected and consequently, petition under Section 151 CPC was also dismissed. Assailing the said order, the Petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

¶25

5. Ms. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the Petitioner relied upon the case law in Neelagangabai and another Vrs. State of Karnataka and others; 1990 AIR SC 1321, State of Mizoram Vrs. Biakchhawana; 1995 SCC (1) 156 and Rajmani Vrs. The Collector, Raipur; 1996 (5) SCC 701 and submits that noncompliance of the provision under Section 20 of the Act vitiates the order passed under Section 18 of the Act. Thus, learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Jagatsinghpur adhering to the hyper technicality rejected the petition for condonation of delay to

¶26

Page 3 of 7

¶27

Signature Not Verified

¶28

Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 31-Jul-2025 10:44:33

¶29

entertain a petition under Section 151 CPC and thereby prevented the Petitioners therein to avail their statutory right to claim higher compensation for acquisition of his land. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagatsinghpur should have recalled the ex-parte order confirming the award passed under Section 11 of the Act and provided an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners therein.

¶30

6. Mr. Pattnaik, learned AGA fairly submits that the case law relied upon by learned counsel for the Petitioner squarely applies to the case in hand. For non-compliance of Section 20 of the Act, the order passed under Section 18 of the Act in LA Misc. Case No.352 of 2004 is vitiated. Hence, he submits that the matter should be remitted to learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Jagatsinghpur for fresh adjudication of the reference providing opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.

¶31

7. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court feels that before examining the veracity of the submission made by Ms. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the Petitioner, a close reading of Section 20 of the Act is necessary, which is reproduced below for ready reference:

¶32

“20. Service of notice

¶33

The Court shall thereupon cause a notice specifying the day on which the Court will proceed to determine the objection, and directing their appearance before the Court on that day, to be served on the following persons, namely:

¶34

(a) the applicant;

¶35

(b) all persons interested in the objection, except such (if any) of them as have consented without protest to receive payment of the compensation awarded; and

¶36

(c) if the objection is in regard to the area of the land or to the amount of the compensation, the Collector.”

¶37

Page 4 of 7

¶38

Signature Not Verified

¶39

Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 31-Jul-2025 10:44:33

¶40

8. On a reading of the said provision, it is apparent that upon receipt of the petition under Section 18 of the Act, it is the duty of the Court to serve notice on the parties and provide him an opportunity of hearing before passing a final order.

¶41

9. In the instant case, order sheet of LA Misc. Case No.352 of 2004 under Annexure-1 discloses that although summons were directed to be issued vide order dated 29^th August, 2005 passed by learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Jagatsinghpur, but, there is no material on record to show that the notice of reference under Section 18 of the Act was ever served on the Petitioners therein. On each date to which the matter was posted, it was adjourned awaiting SR. However, learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Jagatsinghpur on 6^th February, 2023 took up LA Misc. Case No.352 of 2004 for hearing and passed a final order on the very same day observing that neither the Petitioner nor his counsel was present. No step was also taken on his behalf. No endeavour appears to have been made by learned Civil Judge to verify as to whether notice as required under Section 20 of the Act was ever served on the Petitioners therein or not. Learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Jagatsinghpur thereby confirmed the award passed under Section 11 of the Act.

¶42

10. Neither the Petitioners nor the Proforma Opposite Party Nos.4 to 11 had knowledge about the order dated 6^th February, 2023 passed in LA Misc. Case No.352 of 2004 as no notice was ever served on them in the said matter.

¶43

11. They, however, filed a petition under Section 151 CPC to recall the order dated 6^th February, 2023 along with a petition for condonation of delay in filing the same. The said petition was

¶44

Page 5 of 7

¶45

Signature Not Verified

¶46

Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 31-Jul-2025 10:44:33

¶47

registered as CMA No.37 of 2024. Learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Jagatsinghpur observing that the Petitioner failed to explain the delay in filing the petition under Section 151 CPC, dismissed the petition for condonation of delay and thereby dismissed the petition under Section 151 CPC vide order dated 7^th January, 2025.

¶48

12. Since the Petitioners therein had no notice under Section 20 of the Act, which is a mandatory requirement for hearing of a reference under Section 18 of the Act, order dated 6^th February, 2023 passed in LA Misc. Case No.352 of 2004, is vitiated. Thus, learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Jagatsinghpur should have condoned the delay and provided an opportunity of hearing to them so that they would participate in the hearing of the reference under Section 18 of the Act.

¶49

13. Our view gets fortified by the ratio in Neelagangabai and another (supra), State of Mizoram (Supra) and Rajmani (supra). Accordingly, this Court has no hesitation to set aside the order dated 6^th February, 2023 passed in LA Misc. Case No.352 of 2004 (Annexure-1) and order dated 7^th January, 2025 (Annexure-5/A) passed in CMA No.37 of 2024 and it is so directed .

¶50

14. Consequently this Court remits the matter to learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Jagatsinghpur to adjudicate the reference under Section 18 of the Act (i.e., LA Misc. Case No.352 of 2004) afresh giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.

¶51

15. To avoid further delay, Ms. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the Petitioner undertakes that the Petitioner shall appear before learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Jagatsinghpur on 2^nd August, 2025

¶52

Page 6 of 7

¶53

Signature Not Verified

¶54

Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 31-Jul-2025 10:44:33

¶55

along with authenticated copy of this order to receive further instruction in the matter.

¶56

16. Since the land acquisition was made in the year 2004, learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Jagatsinghpur shall make an endeavour to dispose of the reference under Section 18 of the Act as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law after issuing notice to the other Petitioners therein in LA Misc. Case No.352 of 2004.

¶57

17. The Writ Petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶58

Urgent certified copy of this judgment shall be provided to the parties as per Rules.

¶59

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

¶60

(Savitri Ratho) Judge

¶61

The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Dated The 14^th Day of July, 2025///Rojalin///

¶62

Page 7 of 7

Debi Prasad Das v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Debi Prasad Das v. State of Odisha

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

Niranjan Singh Vs State of Odisha

Shyam Sundar Agarwal Vs State of Odisha

Pramod Kumar Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Gitarani Behera Vs State of Odisha

Banaja Mohanty Vs State of Odisha

Mugeiswar Mahadeb Vs State of Odisha