Orissa High Court
Angul Sukinda Railway Ltd vs Laxmidhar Panigrahi And on 4 August, 2026
Author: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
Bench: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
LAA No.64 of 2022
(ODHC010767462022)
Angul Sukinda Railway Ltd. ... ... Appellant
-Versus-
Laxmidhar Panigrahi and ... ... Respondents
others
Advocates appeared in this case:
For Appellant : Mr. Susanta Kumar Dash, Sr. Advocate
along with Mr. Prabin Das, Advocate
For Respondents: Mr. Panchanan Panigrahi along with
Mr. Asutosh Behera, Advocate
(for Respondent Nos.1 & 2)
Mr. D.N. Lenka, AGA
(for Respondent No.3)
Mr. P.K. Parhi, Sr. Advocate (DSGI) along
with Mr. J. Panda, CGC (for Railways)
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO
JUDGMENT
———————————————————————————————————-
Date of Hearing 17th 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
Companies Act, 1956, the challenge is to the judgment
LAA No.64 of 2022 Page 1 of 14
dated 08.04.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge(Sr.
Division), Kamakhyanagar in L.A. Misc. Case No.09 of 2020.
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 11.08.2011 U/s.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894.
2. The Land Acquisition Officer determined market price
of land of different categories: ‘Kisam’, such as ‘Sarada-I’ @
Rs.1,25,000/-, ‘Sarada-III’ @ Rs.55,000/- and ‘Biali’ @
Rs.40,000/- respectively per acre, amount determined to be
payable as compensation being Rs.5,13,936/- (Rupees Five
Lakh Thirteen Thousand Nine Hundred and Thirty Six) that
includes the market price of lands and other statutory
benefits provided under the Act.
The learned referral Court determined the market price
of Sarada-I Kissam at an enhanced rate: @ Rs.2,50,000/-
(Rupees Two Lakh Fifty Thousand) per acre, upholding the
value of Sarada-III and Biali Kissam, 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.198 of 2022, and granted leave for
appeal to be filed by the project proponent-appellant-Angul
LAA No.64 of 2022 Page 2 of 14
Sukinda Railway Limited who was not a party before the
learned referral court.
4. Mr. S.K. Dash, learned Sr. Advocate assisted by Sri P.
Das, Advocate for the appellant, Mr. P. Panigrahi, learned
counsel for the respondents no.1 & 2, Mr. P.K. Parhi,
learned Sr. Advocate and DSGI along with the learned CGC
of the Union of India/Ministry of Railways and Mr. D.
Lenka, learned Additional Government Advocate for the
respondent no.3 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
08.04.2022 by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division),
Kamakhyangar. In the reference, neither the railways nor
the project proponent Angul Sukinda Railways Limited were
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 i.e. L.A. Misc. Case No.09 of2020 decided
by judgment dated 08.04.2022 goes to show that the land
loser has made statutory authority under Land Acquisition
Act, the Special Land Acquisition Officer and the Ministry of
Railways, Union of India as parties, who would neither pay
LAA No.64 of 2022 Page 3 of 14
the compensation nor the enhanced compensation, if it is
allowed. Rather the Special Land Acquisition Officer had
himself referred the matter under Section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act exercising his statutory power.
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 counsel for the appellant refers to the
order dated 20.04.2026 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.
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
1
AIR 1995 SC 724: (1995) 2 SCC 326
LAA No.64 of 2022 Page 4 of 14
considered the reference with further direction to re-hear
the reference by allowing the project proponent to be
impleaded and heard.
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 learned Senior Counsel to support the
contentions raised 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,LAA No.64 of 2022 Page 5 of 14
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.”
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
LAA No.64 of 2022 Page 6 of 14
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.
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 respondent no.1 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
LAA No.64 of 2022 Page 7 of 14
requirement of notice to be issued by the referral Court
before enhancement of compensation is considered.
11. In considered view of this Court the submissions of Mr.
Panigrahi, learned counsel for the respondents has been
considered and answered by this Bench when similar
contentions were raised in LAA No.33 of 2014 (Ramesh
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 contention raised by the land
loser 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 placeLAA No.64 of 2022 Page 8 of 14
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
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 theLAA No.64 of 2022 Page 9 of 14
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.
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 theLAA No.64 of 2022 Page 10 of 14
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 any
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 orLAA No.64 of 2022 Page 11 of 14
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”
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 08.04.2022
passed in LA Misc. Case No.09 of 2020 rendered by the
learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kamakhyanagar is set
aside and quashed.
14. The LA Misc. Case No.09 of 2020 is directed to be
restored to file for adjudication afresh. The parties to the
appeal i.e. the appellant, respondents no.1 & 2, 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.LAA No.64 of 2022 Page 12 of 14
Division), Kamakhyanagar 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.
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 respondents no.1 & 2 shall also appear before the
learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division). If the respondents no.1 &
2 would not appear the Court shall issue notice giving them
reasonable time to appear again as the matter is remanded
for adjudication afresh.
17. It is directed the parties shall appear before the
learned court in seisin of the matter/learned Senior Civil
Judge, Kamakhyanagar on 21.08.2026. 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 2020. Copy of
this judgment shall be forwarded by the Registry to the
learned Civil Judge(Sr. Division), Kamakhyanagar.
LAA No.64 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 09:57:18
LAA No.64 of 2022 Page 14 of 14
