Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 25-Mar-2026 16:41:41 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.34871 of 2025 (In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India)

Sadhu Nayak@Banjara …. Petitioner -versus-

Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, …. Opposite Party Lower Indra Irrigation Project, Khariar, Dist.-Nuapada Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-

For Petitioner : Mr. K.C. Dash, Advocate For Opposite Party : Mr. T.K. Dash, A.G.A.

CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY

JUDGMENT

16^th March 2026 B.P. Routray, J.

1. Heard Mr. K.C Dash, learned Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. T.K Dash, learned Additional Government Advocate for State-

Opposite Party.

2. The Petitioner is the land looser, whose land measuring Ac.1.30 decimals has been acquired by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 25-Mar-2026 16:41:41 Lower Indravati Irrigation Project. Dissatisfied with the amount of land acquisition compensation, he raised reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, “the Act”). The same was registered as LAR Case No.189 of 2010 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nuapada. Due to non-appearance of the Petitioner in the said case, the proceedings under Section 18 in LAR Case No.189 of 2010 was closed by returning reference in original to the Land Acquisition Officer vide order dated 28.01.2014. Subsequently, the Petitioner applied for restoration of LAR Case No.189/2010 in the year 2018, i.e. on 06.07.2018, by filing an application for restoration. Said restoration petition was registered as CMA No.45/2018. The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nuapada vide his order dated 19.06.2025 dismissed the prayer for restoration made by the Petitioner on the ground that there is delay of four years five months in applying for restoration which is not explained satisfactorily. Said impugned order dated 19.06.2025 of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nuapada in rejecting the prayer for restoration of LAR Case No.189 of

2010 is challenged in the present writ petition.

3. The fact of acquisition of land measuring Ac.1.30 decimals of the Petitioner by Special Land Acquisition Officer for the project Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 25-Mar-2026 16:41:41 concerned is not disputed. The reference under Section 18 of the Act by way of objection for enhanced compensation was sent to the court and registered as LAR Case No.189 of 2010. The simple question arises here that, whether such a reference under Section 18 of the Act can be closed for default of appearance by the claimant ?

4. The procedure as prescribed under the Act upon registration of the reference under Section 18 is to proceed in terms of Section 20 and Section 26 of the Act. Section 18 of the Act when authorizes the person aggrieved to raise a reference for enhanced compensation against the award amount and upon receipt of such valid reference. Section 20 requires the court to proceed for determination of the objection by holding necessary enquiry for the amount claimed. In terms of Section 26 of the Act, the court is required to pass an award upon adjudication of the reference. It is true that if the party will not cooperate for adjudication of the reference under Section 18 of the Act, the court would be impaired from the process of effective adjudication. But that never mandate the court to close the proceeding abruptly particularly when a prayer for restoration of the proceeding is made.

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 25-Mar-2026 16:41:41

5. In Khazan Singh (Dead) By LRS vs. Union of India, ( 2002) 2 SCC 242, the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held as follows:

“7. The provisions above subsumed would thus make it clear that the civil court has to pass an award in answer to the reference made by the Collector under Section 18 of the Act. If any party to whom notice has been served by the civil court did not participate in the inquiry it would o