Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ori) 1797
ORISSA HIGH COURT
K.R. MOHAPATRA, Savitri Ratho, JJ
Nilamani Guru – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
W.P.(C). NO.17171 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Hrudananda Mohapatra
For the Respondents: Mr. Siba Narayan Biswal
The court ruled that procedural propriety must be followed in compensation claims, allowing parties to participate and contest third-party objections before the LAR & R Authority.
Headnote:(A) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 64 - Reference to LAR & R Authority - Petitioners prayed for disbursement of compensation awarded under claimed act although the matter is still pending with the authority. Objection by third party considered improperly without party inclusion in proceedings. Court noted procedural error and advised participation in ongoing proceedings. (Paras 2, 5, 6)
(B) Jurisdiction of Collectors - The Collector overstepped their role by referring the matter based on third-party objections instead of adjudicating the petitioners' rights prior to referral. (Paras 5, 6)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners sought a writ directing compensation disbursement as per an award prior to an objection raised academically by a third party regarding the rightful claims to compensation for the same acquisition.
Findings of Court:
Matter must be adjudicated by the LAR & R Authority; ongoing proceedings permit petitioners’ objections to be raised where they could participate fully.
Issues: Whether the reference to LAR & R Authority was maintainable in light of procedural errors regarding objections not being adjudicated.
Ratio Decidendi: Correct procedural channels must be followed, ensuring the party's ability to challenge third-party claims before any referral regarding compensation. Notably, the authority should consider all parties' rights before adjudication.
Result: Writ petition disposed; petitioners permitted to participate in the ongoing proceedings.
ORDER
Order No. 30.06.2025
01. 1. This matter is taken up th r ough hybrid mode.
2. The Petitioners, in this writ application, pray for a direction to disburse the compensation in their favour pursuant to the award dated 13.05.2024 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, Puri in Land Acquisition Case No.1(10)/2022 under the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for brevity ‘the Act’) although the matter is referred to and pending before the LAR & R Authority (Central Division), Cuttack for adjudication under Section 64 of the Act.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that an award under Section 30 of the Act was passed in favour of the Petitioners vide award dated 13.05.2024 in Land Acquisition Case No.1(10)/2022. Before the Compensation amount could be disbursed in favour of the Petitioners, one Sri Chandra Sekhar Guru filed an objection before the Collector and District Magistrate, Puri not to release the compensation in favour of the Petitioners. The Petitioners also filed a representation before the Collector and District Magistrate, Puri stating inter alia that part and parcel of the land of the Petitioners under the same Record of Right under Annexure-1 has been acquired by the National Highway Authority under the provisions of National Highways Act, 1956 and compensation has already been disbursed in favour of the Petitioners. Said Chandra Sekhar Guru had not raised any objection for release of compensation under the National Highways Act, 1956 in favour of the Petitioners. It is also stated in the representation that in the objection filed by Sri Chandra Sekhar Guru, no prayer to refer the matter to the LAR & R Authority, Cuttack was made. Since the representation of the Petitioners was not considered, they moved this Court in W.P.(C) No.24232 of 2024 and this Court vide order dated 01.10.2024 (Annexure-7) directed the Collector to dispose of the representation of the Petitioners within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of the said order. Without disposing of the representation of the Petitioners, pursuant to the direction of this Court in W.P.(C) No.24232 of 2024, the Collector and District Magistrate, Puri mechanically referred the matter to the LAR & R Authority under Section 64 of the Act. Thus, the proceeding under Section 64 of the Act is not maintainable in the eye of law. The Petitioners came to know about the initiation of the proceeding under Section 64 of the Act in LA Reference Case No.4 of 2025, when he received notice under Annexure-8 in the said proceeding. Thus, finding no other alternative, the Petitioners have filed this writ petition for the aforesaid relief.
4. Mr. Biswal, learned Additional Standing Counsel submits that when a reference has been made under Section 64 of the Act, the Petitioners may participate in the said proceeding and raise their objections with regard to the entitlement of said Chandra Sekhar Guru to receive compensation or any share in it. Thus, the writ petition merits no consideration.
5. Taking note of the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that entertaining an objection filed by one Sri Chandra Sekhar Guru (not made party to the writ petition), the Collector and District Magistrate, Puri referred the matter to the LAR & R Authority, Cuttack in exercise of power under Section 64 of the Act for adjudication. The Collector and District Magistrate, Puri had no power to consider the merit of either the objection filed by said Sri Chandra Sekhar Guru or representation made by the Petitioners. It is only the LAR & R Authority, which is empowered to consider the same on merit. Thus, the matter has been rightly referred to the LAR & R Authority, Cuttack for adjudication.
6. On receipt of the reference made by the Collector and District Magistrate, Puri, LA Reference Case No.4 of 2025 has already bee
