The Land Acquisition Act mandates that all compensation references must be adjudicated on merits, and dismissal due to procedural delays violates constitutional rights to fair compensation.

Judgment :

Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.

1. Since both petitions involve an identical question of law, they are heard analogously and disposed of by this common judgment.

2. In both the Review Petitions, the petitioners seek a direction from this Court to recall and set aside the earlier dismissal orders, restore LAR Case Nos. 196/2010 and 170/2010 to the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nuapada, and direct fresh adjudication on merits ensuring just compensation for the acquired lands.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(i) The petitioners’ lands were acquired by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Khariar in 2001 for the construction of the Lower Indra Irrigation Project in Nuapada district. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, they lodged protest petitions seeking higher rates, leading to references under Section 18 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894, registered as LAR Case Nos. 196/2010 and 170/2010 before the Senior Civil Judge, Nuapada.

(ii) During hearing of the reference cases, the learned Senior Civil Judge rejected the petitioners’ adjournment prayers and, by orders dated 16.09.2014 and 19.12.2017, closed and returned the references to the Land Acquisition Officer without adjudication or determining compensation, contrary to the statutory mandate.

(iii) The petitioners filed restoration petitions (CMA No. 279/2017 and CMA No. 01/2020), which were dismissed solely on the ground of delay by orders dated 06.12.2023 and 17.05.2024. Their writ petitions challenging these orders were also dismissed by the High Court.

(iv) The petitioners now seek review of the High Court’s dismissal orders, pointing out that in identical cases (Annexure-5 series), the High Court has set aside similar dismissal orders and restored LAR cases of similarly placed land losers before the same court.

(v) The petitioners contend that their lands are of the same nature and locality as those in LAR Nos. 193/2010, 221/2016, and 249/2017, in which the Senior Civil Judge, Nuapada has awarded significantly higher compensation rates—Rs. 1,84,000/- per acre for Mala/Atta land, Rs. 2,30,000/- per acre for Bema/Bahal land, and Rs. 3,45,000/- per acre for Gharabari land—whereas the petitioners received merely Rs. 12,093/-, Rs. 32,692/-, and Rs. 75,000/- per acre respectively.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:

(i) The closure of the reference proceedings under Section 18 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT without adjudication or determination of compensation is illegal and contrary to law, as the referral court is bound to render an award once a reference is made.

(ii) The dismissal of restoration petitions solely on technical grounds of delay violates Article 300-A of the Constitution, since the right to receive just compensation for acquired land is a constitutional and statutory right which cannot be defeated by limitation.

(iii) The learned Civil Judge failed to comply with Section 20 of the CPC by not issuing any notice or granting a last opportunity before closing the reference, rendering the order arbitrary and void.

(iv) The petitioners’ absence was due to communication gaps with counsel, and the delay in seeking restoration was neither deliberate nor negligent; hence a liberal approach consistent with the principle of substantial justice ought to have been adopted.

(v) A reference cas