IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) NO. 36512 OF 2025 Haridaspur- Paradip Railway …. Petitioner Company Ltd., Khurda Mr. Prabin Das, Advocate -versus-

1. State of Odisha

2. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jagatsinghpur

3. The Chief Engineer, Khurda

4. Bijaya Bharat Mohapatra …. Opposite Parties Mr. Siba Narayan Biswal, Additional Standing Counsel Mr. Alok Kumar Mohanty, Senior Panel Counsel (for O.P. No.3)

CORAM:

JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO

ORDER

Order No. 22.12.2025

01. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Appearance memo of Mr. Alok Kumar Mohanty, learned Senior Panel Counsel is taken on record.

3. The Petitioner in this writ petition seeks to assail the judgment dated 14^th October, 2025 (Annexure-1) passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Kujang, Jagatsinghpur in L.A.R.

Case No.10 of 2015.

4. Mr. Das, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner being a beneficiary of land acquisition and a person interested was not served with any notice before passing of the award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity “the Act”) or during adjudication of the reference under Section 18 of the Act being L.A.R. Case No.10 of 2015. It is his submission that by virtue of the impugned judgment under Annexure-1, the award passed under Section 11 of the Act was enhanced unreasonably. Hence, the Petitioner has a say in the matter. It is, however, submitted that the judgment passed in L.A.R. Case No.10 of 2015 was not challenged in appeal under Section 54 of the Act by either parties to the said reference.

5. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that this case may be disposed of in the light of order dated 18th June, 2024 passed in W.P.(C) No.13949 of 2024 (Angul Sukinda Railway Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. State of Odisha and others), relevant paragraphs of which are quoted hereunder;

“6. A statutory appeal under Section 54 of the Act lies against an award under Section 18 of the Act, but at the same time, a writ petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution against determination of the amount of compensation by the Land Acquisition Collector or by the Reference Court as held in U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad vs. Gyan Devi (Dead) by L.Rs. and Ors., AIR 1995 SC 725 and in Gregory Patrao and others vs. Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Limited and others; (2022) 10 SCC 461. In the instant case, the petitioner is entitled to an opportunity of hearing for just adjudication of the reference under Section 18 of the Act.

7. In that view of the matter without delving into technicalities with regard to maintainability of the writ petition, we set aside the impugned award under Annexure-1 and remit the matter to the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kamakhyanagar for de novo adjudication of the L.A. Misc. Case No.184 of 2021 giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties including the petitioner. It is further directed that the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kamakhyanagar shall do well to adjudicate the reference afresh as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.

8. Parties are directed to cooperate for early disposal of the reference.

9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, Writ Petition is disposed of.”

6. He further submits that although the judgment passed under Section 18 of the Act is appealable under Section 54 of the Act, but a writ petition is maintainable as held in the aforesaid order relying upon the decision in the cases of U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad vs. Gyan Devi (Dead) By L.Rs. And Ors.: AIR 1995 SC 725 and Gregory Patrao and others vs. Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Limited and others; (2022) 10 SCC 461. It is his submission that no appeal against the order under Section 54 of the Act has been filed against the Judgment dated 14^th October, 2025 (Annexure-1) which is impugned herein.

7. He, therefore, prays for setting aside the impugned judgm