Orissa High Court
Angul Sukinda Railway Ltd vs Puzi Naik And Others on 4 August, 2026
Author: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
Bench: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
LAA No.65 of 2022
(ODHC010767482022)
Angul Sukinda Railway Ltd. ... ... Appellant
-Versus-
Puzi Naik and others ... ... Respondents
Advocates appeared in this case:
For Appellant : Mr. Susanta Kumar Dash, Sr. Advocate
along with Mr. Prabin Das, Advocate
For Respondents: Ms. Suman Modi along with
Mr. S. Pradhan, Advocate
(for Respondents No.1 to 3)
Mr. D.N. Lenka, AGA
(for Respondent No.4)
Mr. P.K. Parhi, Sr. Advocate (DSGI)
along with
Mr. S.S. Kashyap, Sr. Panel Counsel (for
Res. No.5)
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO
JUDGMENT
———————————————————————————————————-
Date of Hearing 20th July, 2026 : Date of Judgment: 04.08.2026
———————————————————————————————————-
MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO, J.
1. In the appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894, by the appellant, a Company registered under the
LAA No.65 of 2022 Page 1 of 14
Companies Act, 1956, the challenge is to the judgment
dated 21.05.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge(Sr.
Division), Angul in L.A. Misc. Case No.06 of 2022. L.A. Misc.
Case arose out of a reference U/s.18 of the Land Acquisition
Act made by the Special L.A.O., Angul-Duburi-Sukinda
Road, New Broad Gauge Rail Link Project, Dhenkanal. The
acquisition was pursuant to a notification dated 28.05.2011
U/s.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
2. The Land Acquisition Officer determined market price
of land @ Rs.5,44,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Forty four
Thousand) per acre, the amount determined to be payable
as compensation being Rs.8,77,363/-(Rupees Eight Lakh
Seventy-seven Thousand and Three Hundred Sixty Three)
that includes the market price of lands and other statutory
benefits provided under the Act.
The learned referral Court determined the market price
at an enhanced rate: @ Rs.16,50,000/-(Rupees Sixteen
Lakh Fifty Thousand) per acre; directed the Spl. LAO to
recalculate and determine the market price of the land at
enhanced rate and disburse the differential amount to the
present respondents-petitioners.
3. The coordinate Bench by order dated 14.12.2022 has
allowed the I.A. No.200 of 2022, and granted leave for
appeal to be filed by the project proponent appellant Angul
Sukinda Railway Limited who was not a party before the
learned referral court.
LAA No.65 of 2022 Page 2 of 14
4. Mr. S.K. Dash, learned Sr. Advocate assisted by Sri P.
Das, Advocate for the appellant, Mr. S. Pradhan, learned
counsel for the respondents no.1 to 3, Mr. D.N. Lenka,
learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent
no.4 and Mr. P.K. Parhi, learned Sr. Advocate and DSGI
along with Mr. S.S. Kashyap, the learned Sr. Panel Counsel
of the Union of India/Ministry of Railways for respondent
no.5 were heard at some length.
5. In considered view of this Court, the land acquisition
appeal was presented before this Court on 09.11.2022. Prior
thereto the reference was answered by judgment dated
21.05.2022 by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division),
Kamakhyangar. In the reference, the project proponent
Angul Sukinda Railways Limited was not made parties. It is
further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the matter
is kept pending for the last 4 years without proceeding any
further.
6. This Court finds that in the present application the
judgment of the referral Court as annexed to the land
acquisition appeal goes to show that the land loser has
made statutory authority under Land Acquisition Act, the
Special Land Acquisition Officer and the East Coast Railway
as parties, who would neither pay the compensation nor the
enhanced compensation, if it is allowed. Rather the Special
Land Acquisition Officer (authority) had himelf referred the
matter under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act
exercising his statutory power.
LAA No.65 of 2022 Page 3 of 14
7. It is submitted by the learned DSGI that Railways and
the project proponent both are to be made parties and
should be heard by the referral court before any direction is
issued to pay the enhanced compensation.
In considered opinion of this Court the submissions of
the learned DSGI is to be accepted in view of the judgment
of the Hon’ble Apex Court in U.P. Awas Evam Vikash
Parishad v. Gyan Devi1 as well as decision of this Court in
W.P.(C) No.13949 of 2024 (Pitambar Sahoo v. Angul-Sukinda
Railway Limited) by order dated 18.06.2024 passed by the
Division Bench.
8. The learned Sr. Counsel for the appellant refers to the
order in the writ petition W.P.(C) No.6498 of 2026 (Angul
Sukinda Railway Limited, Khordha vs. State of Odisha and
others), which has been disposed of by the Division Bench
by order dated 20.04.2026.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant
that as writ petition against the order of the Referral Court
is also maintainable, the Division Benches of this Court
have entertained the writ application and disposed it of,
remanding the matter to the learned Court that had
considered the reference, with further direction to re-hear
the reference by allowing the project proponent to be
impleaded and heard.
1
AIR 1995 SC 724: (1995) 2 SCC 326
LAA No.65 of 2022 Page 4 of 14
9. The paragraphs-4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of order
dated 20.04.2026 passed in W.P.(C) No.6498 of 2026 are
relied upon by the appellant and are reproduced herein:
“4. 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.
LAA No.65 of 2022 Page 5 of 14
8. Parties are directed to cooperate for early
disposal of the reference.
9. With the aforesaid observation and direction,
Writ Petition is disposed of.”
5. 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 28th March, 2025 (Annexure-2)
which is impugned herein.
6. He, therefore, prays for setting aside the impugned
judgment under Annexure-2 and to remit the matter to the
learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jajpur Road, Jajpur
for fresh adjudication of the reference under Section 18 of
the Act, i.e. L.A.R. Case No.16 of 2016 providing
opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned including
the Petitioner.
7. Mr. Biswal, learned Additional Standing Counsel
submits that the issue involved in this case has already
been answered in W.P.(C) No.13949 of 2024 disposed of
on 18th June, 2024 (supra). He, therefore, submits that
this Writ Petition may be disposed of accordingly.
8. This Court, on earlier occasion, directed learned State
Counsel to take instruction with regard to applicability of
the ratio in the case of Angul Sukinda Railway Ltd.,
Bhubaneswar to this case. On verification, Mr. Biswal,
learned Additional Standing Counsel submits that the
ratio in the case of Angul Sukinda Railway Ltd.,
Bhubaneswar (supra) is squarely applicable to the
instant case.
LAA No.65 of 2022 Page 6 of 14
9. In that view of the matter, this Court without delving
further into the contentions raised by learned counsel for
the Parties on merit of Judgment under Annexure-2,
disposes of the writ petition in the light of the decision in
the case of Angul Sukinda Railway Ltd.,
Bhubaneswar (supra).
10. As the Petitioner is the beneficiary of land acquisition
and a person interested and was not provided with any
opportunity of hearing during adjudication of the
reference under Section 18 of the Act, the impugned
judgment under Annexure-2 is set aside and the matter is
remitted to learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Jajpur
Road, Jajpur to adjudicate L.A.R. Case No.16 of 2016
(under Section 18 of the Act) afresh as expeditiously as
possible, preferably within a period of six months from
the date of service of notice on the parties, providing
opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, including
the Petitioner.
11. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jajpur Road,
Jajpur shall act upon production of certified copy of this
order.
12. Since this writ petition is disposed of without issuing
any notice to the land losers (Opposite Party No.7 and 8),
they are at liberty to move this Court for variation of this
order if she feels aggrieved.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.”
,
10. The learned counsel for the respondents no.1 to 3
submits that the decision of the Constitution Bench in U.P.
Awas Evam Vikas Parishad vs. Gyan Devi (Dead) By
L.Rs. And Ors.: AIR 1995 SC 725 is distinguishable as far
as the requirement of notice to the Project Proponent in a
reference for enhancement of compensation is considered.
11. In considered view of this Court the submissions of
Ms. Modi, learned counsel for the respondents no.1 to 3 has
been considered and answered by this Bench when similar
contentions were raised in LAA No.33 of 2014 (Ramesh
LAA No.65 of 2022 Page 7 of 14
Chandra Patra and another vs. Special L.A.O., Angul-Duburi-
Sukinda Road, New Broad Gauge Rail Link Project), decided
by judgment dated 05.05.2025.
The paragraphs in the said judgment which have dealt
with and answered similar contentions, i.e.18 to 20 and 35
to 40 are reproduced herein :
“18. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
though not made party the referral court issued notice to
the East Coast Railway. On being asked by which order
the said notice was issued by the learned Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Kamakshyanagar in L.A. Misc. Case
No.126 of 2013, the learned counsel submits that the
Special LAO while referring the matter under section 18 of
the Land Acquisition Act, by letter intimated the East
Coast Railway.
Such submission is also contrary to the materials on
record i.e. the record of the lower Court (LCR). The
judgment as well as the reference on the face of it does
not indicate that the requisitioning authority-East Coast
Railway was ever made a party much less noticed by the
learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kamakhyanagar as
is being suggested by the learned counsel for the
Appellants.
19. Assuming that the opposite party in the L.A.
case, Spl. LAO issued letter to another authority which is
not made party, proposition that such letter has to be
treated as notice issued by the court is beyond scope of
law. When the Special LAO himself was the opposite
party in the adjudication he could not have issued letter
to another authority to be treated as notice to appear
before the Court. The LAO was not competent in his
official capacity to place before the referral Court the
version of the Railways or the Company.
20. Relying on the decisions rendered by the Supreme
Court in Satish Kumar Gupta and others v. State of
Haryana and others: (2017) 4 SCC 760 and Gregory
Patrao v. Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals
Ltd.: (2022) 10 SCC 461, it is submitted by the learned
counsel, Mr. Panda for the appellants that the intending
intervenors are neither necessary nor proper parties to be
LAA No.65 of 2022 Page 8 of 14
impleaded before the LA referral court and they have no
locus standi in view of the notification dated 07.07.2010
issued under S.4(1) of the LA Act, annexed to the
objection marked as Annexure-1/1. It is further submitted
that Ministry of Railways is not a necessary party.
Such submission of the learned counsel is on the
face of the fact that the requisitioning authority is Union
of India through Ministry of Railways as per the orders of
the Excellency the President of India under Article 256(1)
of the Constitution of India.
xxx xxx xxx xxx
35. The intervenors rely on the decision rendered by a
coordinate Bench in Pitambar Sahoo v. Angul-Sukinda
Railway Limited : 2016 (2) ILR Cut. 212, 2016(II)
OLR 27, wherein the coordinate Bench has dealt with the
memorandum of understanding/concession agreement in
extenso to hold that by the agreement entered between
the East coast Railway and the intervenors was liable to
indemnify all actions, suits, claims, demands and
proceedings.
It was held that the one who is under obligation or
liable to indemnify against all actions, suits, claims,
demands and proceedings has a right to be heard in it
which has become more expedient when neither Ministry
of Railway, Govt. of India nor the East coast Railways
have been impleaded as a party to the reference. The
decision of the coordinate Bench has attained finality as
it has not been challenged/altered by any subsequent
decision.
Therefore, this Court is not required to go again into
the said issues as in the elaborate order the coordinate
Bench considered the MoU/concession agreement entered
into between the Railways and the petitioner-Company
the scope and interpretation of various clauses of the
MoU/concession agreement. The fact remains that
Pitambar Sahoo (supra) has dealt with the self-same
land acquisition process i.e. the notification for acquisition
of land U/s.4(1) of the LA. Act, 1894 vide Notification
No.26720 dated 07.07.2010 for acquisition of land of the
Angul-Duburi-Sukinda New B.G. Rail Link Project for East
Coast Railways.
LAA No.65 of 2022 Page 9 of 14
36. The reliance of the appellants on Gregory Patrao v.
Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd.: (2022)
10 SCC 461 is of no avail. In Gregory Patrao (supra) it
was held that the allottee of land by the beneficiary for
whom the land was acquired cannot be a person
interested. In the case at hand Eastcoast Railway
and/or the Angul-Sukinda Railway Company are
themselves the beneficiaries/project proponents. They
are not subsequent allottees of the land that was
acquired.
37. In the present case East coast Railway and/or the
Angul-Sukinda Railway Company are the project
proponents/beneficiary. To oppose the participation of
the Company in the proceeding before the referral Court
the only argument made by the appellant is that Angul-
Sukinda Railway Company entered into a memorandum
of understanding with the East coast Railway regarding
execution of the project. It is not the case of the
appellants that Angul-Sukinda Railway Company and/or
East Coast Railway are post-acquisition allottee of land to
apply the principle of Gregory Patrao (supra).
38. In considered view of this Court the argument of
the appellants to apply Gregory Patrao (supra) or
Satish Kumar Gupta and others v. State of Haryana
and others: (2017) 4 SCC 760 fails in view of the fact
that East coast Railway and/or Angul-Sukinda Railway
Company are not post acquisition allottees of land. They
are the immediate beneficiaries of land acquisition, they
are the project proponents/requisitioning authority.
Significantly, it has also to be noted that the learned
counsel for the appellants and the learned AGA for the
Special LAO did not point out how by impleading the
project proponent East Coast Railway and/or the S.A. Rly
Company (ASLR Ltd) the appellants-land losers or the
Special Land Acquisition Officer would have been
prejudiced/will be prejudiced in any manner in the
proceeding before the Court below.
The stand taken by the State representing the Special
LAO opposing participation by the Railway/S.A. Rly.
Company defies logic, as a Special LAO can not have anyLAA No.65 of 2022 Page 10 of 14
interest apart from disbursing the amount of
compensation determined or enhanced to be paid as
compensation.
39. It has to be noticed that U.P. Awas Evam Vikash
Parishad (supra) is a constitution Bench decision
rendered by five Hon’ble Judges and Neyvely Lignite
Corporation Ltd. (supra) rendered by three Hon’ble
Judges, still hold the field. The decisions in Gregory
Patrao and Satish Kumar Gupta (supra) rendered by
Bench of two Hon’ble Judges did not differ from earlier
decisions of the constitution Bench or three Judge Bench
and only held that earlier decisions are not applicable to
post acquisition allottees.
It has also to be noticed that the coordinate Bench
in Pitambar Sahoo (supra) has applied the principles
laid in U.P. Awas Evam Vikash Parishad (supra),
Neyvely Lignite Corporation Ltd. (supra) and also
considered Gregory Patrao(supra) and Satish Kumar
Gupta (supra).
Learned AGA though argued regarding applicability
of Gregory Patrao (supra) but it was also not disputed
that East coast Railway being the beneficiary/project
proponent/requisitioning authority was not made a party
before the referral court under section 18 of the L.A. Act.
40. As a result of the above discussions the award
dated 04.07.2014 in L.A. Misc. Case No.126 of 2013
decided by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Kamakhyanagar is set aside and quashed. The L.A. Misc.
Case No. 126 of 2013 is restored to file for adjudication
afresh. The parties in the present case i.e. the appellants
and the intervenors shall appear before the learned court
of jurisdiction i.e. the learned Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Kamakhyanagar or any other court that could
be assigned the matter. The learned Court shall act upon
production of the website copy of this order.
xxx xxx xxx xxx”
LAA No.65 of 2022 Page 11 of 14
12. Noticeably the learned referral Court though has
determined the market price at an enhanced rate but it has
not referred to any version of the entity that would pay such
money i.e. the project proponent/requisitioning authority.
No such issue has been framed as the learned Court
proceeded to adjudicate the matter there being no opposite
party to respond to the plea of enhancement. Such judicial
approach is clearly against basic tenets of principle of audi
alteram partem. Such approach of the learned Court has
ended in impacting the legality of the adjudication.
13. Having heard learned counsel for the appearing
parties, considering the facts of the case and applying the
law laid down in the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court,
judgment of this Court, the judgment dated 21.05.2022
passed in LA Misc. Case No.06 of 2022 rendered by the
learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Angul is set aside and
quashed.
14. The LA Misc. Case No.06 of 2022 is directed to be
restored to file for adjudication afresh. The parties to the
appeal i.e. the appellant, respondents no.1 to 3, the State
through Special L.A.O. as well as the Ministry of
Railways/East Coast Railways shall appear before the court
of jurisdiction i.e. court of the learned Civil Judge(Sr.
Division), Angul or any learned court that may be/have
been assigned the matter. Learned court shall act upon
production of the certified copy of this order.
LAA No.65 of 2022 Page 12 of 14
The present appellant shall file application for
impletion as necessary party before the learned referral
court in the proceeding which stands restored. Learned
court shall allow the said application to enable the
intervenor to be arrayed as opposite party.
15. As the matter is remitted to the learned referral court
to be adjudicated afresh, the learned court shall afford
opportunity to the intervenors, project proponent to file their
written statement regarding enhancement of the award and
in accordance with law shall allow them to adduce evidence
and produce witnesses in support of their contentions.
16. The present respondents no.1 to 3 shall also appear
before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division). If the
respondents no.1 to 3 would not appear the Court shall
issue notice giving them reasonable time to appear again
after remand.
17. It is directed the parties shall appear before the
learned court in seisin of the matter/learned Senior Civil
Judge, Angul on 28.08.2026. The parties shall co-operate in
the proceeding, shall not seek unnecessary adjournment
and the reference shall be disposed of as expeditiously as
possible being of the year 2022. Copy of this Judgment shall
be forwarded by the Registry to the learned Civil Judge (Sr.
Division), Angul.
LAA No.65 of 2022 Page 13 of 14
18. The LAA is allowed and disposed of with the aforesaid
directions.
(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo)
JudgeOrissa High Court, Cuttack
The 4th August, 2026/AmitSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR MOHANTY
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 05-Aug-2026 09:57:18LAA No.65 of 2022 Page 14 of 14
