IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK LAA No.44 of 2026 An appeal under Section 74 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013.

---------------

Abhaya Sahoo … … Appellant -Versus-

Sub-Collector-cum-CALA … … Respondent.

For Appellant : Mr. Rajkishor Swain, Advocate For Respondent : Prabhu Prasanna Behera, ASC ------------------ P R E S E N T:

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of hearing & Judgment : 10^th April, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO, J. As directed by order dated

06.04.2026, the matter has been numbered, registered as LAA and is taken up.

2. The Memo dated 06.04.2026 filed by the learned counsel for the appellant is handed over to the learned counsel who is present in Court. He carries out correction in the said Memo by mentioning the LAA number in place of the earlier diary number, which is counter-signed by the Court Master. The Memo is again filed and taken on record.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant was heard at some length on 24.02.2026 and is again heard today.

The Land Acquisition Appeal has been filed invoking the provision of section 74 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement (RLFTCAR&R) Act, 2013 challenging the order dated 09.10.2025 passed by the Collector-cum-Arbitrator, Balangir in LA (Arbitration) Case No.60 of 2024 (arising out of L.A. Case No.68 of 2020) under section 3(G) of the National Highway Act, 1956.

4. The Stamp Report dated 31.12.2025 indicates that question of nomenclature/maintainability of LAA has been pointed. Apparently, the Stamp Reporter has raised the issue of maintainability of LAA as the challenge is to an order by the statutory authority/Arbitrator under the N.H.Act, 1956.

5. By order dated 24.02.2026 the following was directed in the lead matter LAA No.50 of 2026 as the matters were tagged and taken up together:

“The learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the State has adjournment to address on the said issue on the next date as the Section 3(J) of N.H.Act, 1956 provides that land acquisition Act 1 of 1894 not to apply- Nothing in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 shall apply to an acquisition under this Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner shall also address regarding applicability of the RLFTCAR&R Act, 2013 to the acquisitions made on the National Highway Act, 1956.”

6. The learned counsel for the appellant referring to above quoted order dated 24.02.2026 submits that he has remedy available under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as provided in Section 34, to approach the learned District Judge having jurisdiction.

It is further submitted that Stamp Report does not reflect the details regarding the delay that would be applicable for entertaining the appeal.

7. The fact remains that the judgment is dated

09.10.2025, the appeal was presented on 24.12.2025.

It is submitted that for the purpose of calculation of the limitation it has to be noticed that the certified copy of the order under challenge has been issued on 20.11.2025, pursuant to the copy application dated 04.11.2025, appeal has been filed on 24.12.2025 before this Court; the prescribed period of limitation being ninety days. It is submitted that even if there would be any delay it would be only of few days.

8. It is submitted that in moving the application before the learned District Judge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act the delay need be condoned as the petitioner pursued the litigation before this Court bona-fide and Section 14 of the Limitation Act would come to the aid of the appellant.

9. In a recent decision, The Deputy Commissioner and Special Land Acquisition Officer v. M/s. S.V.

Global Mill Limited, 2026 INSC 138 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has dealt with a large ba