JUDGMENT :

K.R. Mohapatra, J.

This is an application filed by the claimant-respondent No.1 (for short ‘the petitioner’) assailing the maintainability of the appeal at the instance of the appellant, namely, Angul-Sukinda Railway Limited, Bhubaneswar (for short ‘the Opposite Party’).

2. It is contended in the misc. case that basing upon a requisition made by East Coast Railways through its Chief Engineer (HQ/CQ), Bhubaneswar, the State Government issued notification under Section 4 (1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) for acquisition of the land for Angul-Duburi-Sukinda Road New B.G. Rail Link Project at the instance of the Union of India/Ministry of Railways. The opposite party is neither the Requisitioning Authority nor has undertaken any liability as per the notification/declaration under the Act for payment of compensation to the claimant and as such, it is neither a beneficiary nor a person interested to sue or to be sued for the purpose of determination of compensation under the provisions of the Act. The opposite party has no locus standi to file the appeal and leave granted to the opposite party by this Court by order dated 16.11.2015 to present and prosecute the appeal is opposed to the provisions of Section 50(2) of the Act. The opposite party is neither a ‘local authority’ as defined under Section 3 (aa) of the Act or nor a ‘Company’ under Section 3 (e) of the Act for whom the land has been acquired. The opposite party is also not a ‘person interested’, who is required to be noticed under Section 20 of the Act and thus, it has no right either to apply for a reference to the Court for determination of compensation or to prefer and maintain an appeal under Section 54 of the Act. SRO No. 1074 dated 14.05.1955 has been issued in exercise of power conferred on the Union of India by Article 258 (1) of the Constitution of India. In the said S.R.O., the Government of Odisha has been entrusted to act for and on behalf of the Central Government in relation to acquisition of land for the purpose of Union of India. The opposite party has been entrusted to carry out the project work. Thus, the status of the opposite party is not more than an allottee/lessee or contractor on the basis of concession agreement under Annexure-1 to the petition. The opposite party cannot step into the position of East Cost Railways or Government of Odisha on the basis of concession agreement for execution of the project work under Public Private Partnership (PPP) mode. The Special Land Acquisition Officer has been provided with fund to pay compensation for acquisition of the land. The East Coast Railways for which the land has been acquired has the knowledge of such award of compensation and in many cases, has intimated the Special Land Acquisition Officer for payment of decreetal dues/compensation. Hence, the petitioner contended that the appeal at the instance of the opposite party is not maintainable and prayed for allowing his prayer holding the appeal not maintainable.

3. The opposite party filed its counter affidavit refuting the allegations made in the petition. It is contended that the petition is not maintainable either in law or on fact. Upon a reference being made under Section 18 of the Act, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kamakhyanagar determined the market value of the acquired land which is impugned in the present appeal. The Government of Odisha issued a notification vide Notification No. 26720 dated 7.7.2010 under Section 4 (1) of the Act for acquisition of the land for execution of Augul-Duburi-Sukinda New B.G. Rail Link Project which was required for Steel and Thermal Sector in the State. Land was acquired for East Coast Railways by the State Government. The project is to be carried out under the Public Private Partnership (PPP) mode adopted by the Ministry of Railways, where the State of Odisha is the major stake holder, two other Private Sector Undertakings have taken the burden to the extent of 32% in the