Jaya Gopal Chakrabarty Vs State of Odisha

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Jaya Gopal Chakrabarty with a prayer to set aside the order dated 08.02.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Jagatsinghpur in C.M.A. No.7 of 2024 in which the petition filed by the petitioner under section 151 C.P.C. to recall the order dated 08.02.2023 along with the petition for condonation of delay has been rejected.

¶17

It appears that the petition under section 18 of Land Acquisition Act was received from L.A.O. on for the

¶18

Page 1 of 5

¶19

year 2004 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagatsinghpur and accordingly, Land Acquisition Misc. Case No.314 of 2004 was registered. Thereafter, the matter was placed on different dates and then notice was issued and it was adjourned from time to time awaiting service return. When, the matter was taken up on 08.02.2023, learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Jagatsinghpur passed the order that the petitioner has already received the awarded amount of L.A. Collector and thereafter he made objection for higher compensation and accordingly, the order passed by the L.A. Collector regarding compensation was confirmed.

¶20

The petitioner filed an application under section 151 C.P.C. before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Jagatsinghpur, which was registered as C.M.A. No.7 of 2024 arising out of L.A. Misc Case No.314 of 2004 with a prayer to recall the order passed on 08.02.2023, inter alia, on the ground that neither the petitioner was any point of time was served with any notice to the petitioner for his appearance nor through process server by the Court or by Regd. Post. In absence of the petitioner, the confirmation order of the Land Acquisition Officer has caused serious prejudice and also substantive loss to the petitioner, who is a land looser. It was further stated that there was neither any deliberate negligence nor any intentional laches on the

¶21

Page 2 of 5

¶22

part of the petitioner for his non-appearance on the dates fixed. Therefore, it was prayed to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by recalling the order dated 08.02.2023 and also to consider the application under section 151 C.P.C. for condonation of delay.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to section 20 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984, which deals with service of notice and it is stated, inter alia, that after the reference is made under section 18 of the said Act, the Court has to cause a notice specifying the day on which the Court will proceed to determine the objection, and will direct the appearance of the parties on that date and such notice has to be served, inter alia, on the applicant and all persons interested to the objection.

¶24

The order sheet, which was relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner has been annexed to this writ petition as Annexure-1 series, which indicates that at no point of time, notice in L.A. Misc. Case No.314 of 2004 was served on the petitioner. Therefore, the observation made by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagatsinghpur vide order dated 08.02.2023 is that neither the petitioner nor his counsel is present is totally misconceived and such observation should have been made only if the notice would have been served on the petitioner in terms of section 20 of Land Acquisition

¶25

Page 3 of 5

¶26

Act, 1894.

¶27

After going through the application under section 151 C.P.C. so also the application for condonation of delay, we are of the view that the observation made by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagatsinghpur that there was laches on the part of the petitioner and no sufficient cause for condonation of delay has been shown is not acceptable.

¶28

Learned counsel for the State has no serious objection to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶29

After hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties and on going through the averments taken in the writ petition and the petition under section 151 C.P.C. so also the application for condonation of delay, we are of the view that the impugned order dated 08.02.2023 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and therefore, the same is set aside and consequently the order dated 08.02.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagatsinghpur in L.A. Misc. Case No.314 of 2004 stands recalled. The petitioner shall appear before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagatsinghpur on 15.02.2025 and the matter be decided in accordance with law. The Court shall make every endeavour to dispose of the L.A. Misc. Case No.314 of 2004 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a

¶30

Page 4 of 5

¶31

certified copy of this order, if there is no other impediment. We have not expressed any opinion on the merits of L.A. Misc. Case No.314 of 2004.

¶32

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the

¶33

writ petition stands disposed of.

¶34

Issue urgent certified copy as per Rules.

¶35

( S.K. Sahoo)

¶36

Judge

¶37

(Savitri Ratho) Judge

¶38

Rajesh

¶39

Signature Not Verified

¶40

Digitally Signed Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR BADHEI Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 12-Feb-2025 17:29:17

¶41

Page 5 of 5

Jaya Gopal Chakrabarty v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaya Gopal Chakrabarty 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madhusudan Sa Vs State of Odisha

Riya Seth Vs Odisha Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation, Bbsr

Anusaya Behera Vs State of Odisha

Manmath Kumar Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Tapas Kumar Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Alok Mohapatra Vs State of Odisha