IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK LAA No.76 of 2022 An appeal under section 74 of the Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act, 2013. --------------- Bhagaban Mishra … … Appellant -Versus- The Land Acquisition Zone Officer, Bolangir … … Respondent Advocates appeared in the case: For Appellant : Mr. Rabindra Kumar Sahoo, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. P.K. Mohanty, ASC ------------------ CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO J U D G M E N T ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Decided on 13th March, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO, J. 1. The matter has been listed under the heading of “For referral to the Special Mediation Drive 2.0- Mediation for the Nation”. 2. Noticeable the authority for whom the land has been acquired is not a party before this Court nor it was a party before the learned Referral Court. The land was acquired for the Khurda-Bolangir New Broad Gauge Rail Link Project, Bolangir. 3. The matter has been pending since 2022 arising out of a reference of the year 2015. The land acquisition was made pursuant to Notification No.17614 dated 07.05.2007 published in the Odisha Gazette on 11.06.2007. 4. In view of the judgment rendered by the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in U.P. Awas Evam Vikash Parishad v. Gyan Devi: AIR 1995 SC 724: (1995) 2 SCC 326, which has also been followed by this Court in Pitambar Sahoo v. Angul-Sukinda Railway Limited: 2016 (II) ILR-CUT-212: 2016 (II) OLR 27 and Ramesh Chandra Patra and others v. Special L.A.O., Angul- Duburi- Sukinda Road, New Broad Gauge Rail Link Project: 2025 (II) ILR-CUT-476, the requisitioning authority/project proponent for whom the land has been acquired is required to be heard for determination of compensation as well as enhancement thereof. For reasons best known to the Referral Court, the said authority was not directed to be made a party. 5. The Land Acquisition Zone Officer who is the statutory authority under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for adjudication and disbursement of the land acquisition compensation as deposited by the Project Proponent is the only Opp. Party before the referral Court U/S-18 of the LA Act, 1894. The Project Proponent has not been heard by the learned Referral Court. 6. In such a scenario, in absence of the Project Proponent who may have to pay the enhanced compensation if it is so directed to the appellant, the matter cannot be referred to mediation. 7. In view of the absence of the Project Proponent before the learned Referral Court when the proceeding was undertaken under section 18 of the land Acquisition Act, 1894, the said aspect cannot be improved at this stage in the appeal. Accordingly, the order dated 05.08.2022 is set aside and the LAA case No.19 of 2015 is restored to the file of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bolangir. 8. The order shall be forwarded to the learned District Judge, Bolangir for facilitating/assigning the matter to the Court of jurisdiction who can take up the matter at present. 9. The learned Court shall take up the matter and pass appropriate orders for impleading the Project Proponent as Opp. Party and shall issue notice to the Project Proponent as well as the Land Acquisition Officer and proceed with the matter in accordance with law. The learned Court that would be in session of the matter is also requested to take up the matter expeditiously as LAA case No.19 of 2015 is now restored to file after eleven years. 10. The appeal is accordingly allowed with the aforesaid directions. Urgent certified copy of this judgment be issued as per Rules. (Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 13th March, 2026/Rajesh