LAA No.63 of 2016 Page 1 of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK LAA No.63 of 2016 Union of India … ... Appellant -Versus- Ashalata Mohanty and others ... … Respondents Advocates appeared in this case: For Appellant : Mr. Bibhuti Bhusan Mishra, Sr. Panel Counsel For Respondents: Mr. Abhimanyu Parida, Advocate (for Respondents No.1 to 4) Mr. P.K. Mohanty, ASC (for Respondent No.5) CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO J U D G M E N T ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Decided on: 21st April, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO, J. 1. Heard Mr. Mishra, learned Sr. Panel Counsel for the appellant, Mr. Parida, learned counsel for the respondents no.1 to 4 and Mr. Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the respondent no.5. LAA No.63 of 2016 Page 2 of 5 2. The appellant East Coast Railway is a Government of India organization represented through its General Manager have challenged the judgment dated 29.08.2016 passed by the learned Sr. Civil Judge, Nayagarh in L.A. Misc. Case No.63 of 2013. The said LA Misc. Case pursuant to a reference made U/s.18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for determination of compensation for land of the petitioner herein, the land being acquired by the Government of India/Railways/Project Proponent for the Khurda Road- Bolangir New B.G. Rail Link Project. The description of land as disclosed before the learned Sr. Civil Judge, Nayagarh is Khata No.163/22, Plot No.472 having area Ac. 0.38 decimals (out of 43 decimals) of Kisam- Taila-I under mouza-Banamalipur, P.S.-Itamati in the district of Nayagarh. 3. For the acquired land sum of Rs.56,682/- was awarded for the claimants. The claimants received the amount on 22.12.2010 and filed a written objection before the Land Acquisition Officer, Nayagarh which was referred to the learned Court by the Collector, Nayagarh U/s.3(c) of L.A. Act. The reference was answered in favour of the land loosers with the following order: “This reference is allowed on contest against the Opp. Parties but without any cost. The petitioners are entitled to get the compensation @ Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand five hundred) per decimals for their land and interest, solatium, market value and other benefits as per statute. The Opp. Parties are jointly LAA No.63 of 2016 Page 3 of 5 and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners as per law.” 4. The learned reference Court considered the evidence of two witnesses on behalf of land loosers, including the petitioner no.2 himself. The project proponent/railways examined one witness, other documentary evidence relied upon by the learned referral Court are a Sale Deed exhibited on behalf of the land oustees and documents marked as exhibit by the project proponent. 5. The learned Sr. Panel Counsel submits that in appeal the judgment needs to be overturned as it is not based on proper consideration of fact, consideration of relevant law and incorrect appreciation of law. 6. In response, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 4 submits that the issue involved in the present appeal has been put to rest by the earlier order of the coordinate Bench dated 11.11.2021 passed in LAA No. 44 of 2016 (Union of India v. Land Acquisition Officer, Khurda road- Bolangir Rail Link Project, Nayagarh and others). To substantiate his submissions, he refers to the schedule of land dealt with in the said LAA that has been noted by the coordinate Bench at paragraph-2 i.e. Ac.0.29 decimals appertaining to Khata No.163/23, Plot No.2 of kisam Taila-I, in mouza Banamalipur in the District of Nayagarh. Photocopy of the said order dated 11.11.2021 is filed before this Court and copy has also been served on the learned Sr. Panel Counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State. LAA No.63 of 2016 Page 4 of 5 7. It would be apt to quote the description of the land given at paragraph-2 of the order of the coordinate Bench. The coordinate Bench has dealt with conclusions of the referral Court in the LAA No.44 of 2016. The observations of the referral Court in not interfering with the judgment of the referral Court is reproduced herein: “7. It would be seen that the land of the Petitioner stood recorded under Khata No.163/23 assigned with Plot No.2 and out of the total land of Ac.0.44 decimals, land measuring Ac.0.29 decimals has been acquired for the said project leaving the rest which has been reduced to half or even little more and thus limiting the scope of its user even for agricultural purpose, having the definite tendency to pose problem in cultivation and thus affecting the return thereof. It is also reveals that the land in question is situated close to road when Schools, Market place, Gram Panchayat Office etc. are in the vicinity. Such evidence has remained unchallenged. No doubt the kisam of land stands as per the record finds mention as Taila-I. Along with the obtained evidence, further the judicial notice of the fact has to be taken that with the developments the lands in such areas are no more being used for cultivation and keeping that in view the State legislature has also made the procedure for the conversion of the agricultural land to homestead more simpler although time has now come to rethink on that as the total cultivable land in the State is day by day reducing, which is posing threat to the growth in the agricultural sector. The other important factor which cannot be lost sight of is that while fixing the fees for the purpose of conversion of kisam of such type of land, the Legislature has made the distance of the land from the National/State Highway/Public Road as the guide and accordingly, for the conversion of kisam, the land loser to those roads are being charged with more fees than those at a distance. 8. Having taken all these aspects into consideration and viewing the evidence on record even accepting the submission of the learned counsel for the Appellant as LAA No.63 of 2016 Page 5 of 5 regards the conflicting views of the Referral Court, those are found to be of no such significance and in my view the market value of the land as has been determined in the case is neither unreasonable nor excessive. Thus this Court finds no such reason/justification to interfere with the determination of the market value of the acquired land as made by the Referral Court and accordingly, the direction to so compute the compensation with the allowable statutory benefits to be paid to the Respondent No.3 is held to be well in order.” 8. In view of the above discussions, in considered opinion of this Court the issue involved in the present appeal is settled by the earlier order of the coordinate Bench. It is stated at the Bar that the order of the coordinate Bench referred above has not been challenged and the same has attained finality. 9. Accordingly, the present appeal fails and is dismissed. Now no costs. (Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 21st April, 2026/Radha