The court emphasized the importance of the definition of 'person interested' and the provision of section 64 of the Land Acquisition Act in resolving the compensation dispute.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. G.N. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Debakanta Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-opposite party no. 1 by Video Conferencing mode.

2. This writ petition has been filed by Biranchi Patel-petitioner inter alia with a prayer that the Land Acquisition Officer, Sundargarh-opposite party no. 1 may be directed to pay the entire compensation to him instead of opposite party no. 2-Jogindra Patel as the land in question measuring an area of Ac.0.21 decimals, was gifted to him by the original land holder-Bamadev Patel by execution of registered Gift Deed No. 418/1976.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has filed Mutation Case No. 206/1978. The Tahasildar, Lephripara allowed the same and directed to mutate the gifted land i.e. Plot Nos. 862 and 701 under Khata No. 99. Even then, the land was again wrongly recorded in the name of Bamadev Patel. Simultaneously, Bamadev Patel had also gifted land measuring an area of Ac.7.19 decimals in favour of one Nalini Prava Patel, whose Mutation Case comprising of four plots measuring an area of Ac.1.60 decimals was also allowed, but that land was wrongly recorded in favour of the petitioner. She filed a Civil Suit vide C.S. No. 135/2016, which ended in compromise and land was mutated in her name. She has even been received compensation for the acquisition of land. In regard to the land of the petitioner, however, the compensation has not been awarded to him. The petitioner has filed a Civil Suit vide C.S. No. 175/2019 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Sundargarh for declaration of his right, title and interest over the land in dispute, which is still pending. The petitioner ventilating his grievance filed an application before opposite party no. 1 on 14.02.2020 (Annexure-5) with the prayer that the compensation may not be paid to opposite party no. 2-Jogindra Patel and reference of the dispute may be made under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, “the Land Acquisition Act”) to decide the person entitled to get compensation. It is submitted that the Land Acquisition Officer has not so far decided the said application. The petitioner apprehends that the compensation may in the meantime be paid to opposite party no. 2-Jogindra Patel, the legal heir of Bamadev Patel, who has now been substituted.

4. Having regard to the provision of section 64 of the Land Acquisition Act, which inter alia provides that any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require to refer the matter for determination of the Authority, whether the objection with regard to the person to whom it is payable and considering the definition of the “person interested” in Clause 3(x), which means all persons claiming an interest in compensation, we deem it appropriate that before disbursement of the compensation, the opposite party no. 1 ought to decide the application of the petitioner (Annexure-5). Accordingly, we direct the opposite party no. 1 to dispose of the application of the petitioner under Annexure-5, after due notice to opposite party no. 2 and providing opportunity of hearing to both the parties within a period of three months by passing a reasoned order. We further direct that the compensation shall not be disbursed to opposite party no. 2 till the application of the petitioner is decided.

5. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

6. As Lock-down period is continuing for COVID-19, learned counsel for the appellant may utilize the soft copy of this order available in the High Court's website or print out thereof at par with certified copies in the manner prescribed, vide Court's Notice No. 4587, dated 25.03.2020.