IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.15351 OF 2023 Bijay Gupta …. Petitioner Mr. Diptiranjan Mohapatra, Advocate -versus- Union of India & others … Opposite Parties Mr.Bibekananda Nayak, Additional Government Advocate Mr.Ajit Patnaik, Advocate for O.P No.2 Mr. Ghanshyam Banji, Advocate for O.P. Nos.5 to 7 Mr. Prasanna Kumar Parhi, DSGI (for O.P. No. 1) CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA ORDER Order No. 12.05.2026 14. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Petitioner in this writ petition prays for a direction for release of the compensation for structure made over the plot no.1699 of Khata No.29 at Kalapani Mouza in the district of Bargah (for brevity ‘the acquired land’) as accessed by the Executive Engineer R & B Division, Bargarh along with interest thereon. 3. It is submitted by Mr. Mohapatra, learned Counsel for the Petitioner that although the Opposite Party Nos.5 to 7 are the recorded tenants in respect of the acquired land, but they are not in possessions of the same for the last 40 years. The Petitioner has constructed his residential house over the acquired land taking permission of the land owner-Opposite Party Nos.5 to 7 and was residing thereon. 3.1. The land was acquired for widening of Sambalpur- Bargarh in Odisha/Chhatisgarh i.e. from Km. 0.000 to 88.000 in the State of Odisha. Award under Section 3G of National Highways Act, 1956 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) has already been passed by the Competent Authority, Land Acquisition (CALA). As the Petitioner along with similarly placed persons were not provided with compensation for structure they had raised, they made application to the Collector, Bargarh for award of adequate compensation for structure over the acquired land. Upon receipt of such application, the Collector, Bargarh vide his letter no.143/L.A. dated 18.06.2019 (Annexure-3) requested the Authorities under the National Highways to take a decision for providing compensation for the structure standing over the acquired land to the persons, who have constructed the house and in physical possession over the same before vacation of the acquired properties. Till date, no action has been taken by the National Highways Authority. Hence, the writ petition has been filed. 4. Mr. Banji, learned Counsel for the Opposite Party Nos.5 to 7 by filing the Counter Affidavit submits that the Petitioner did not make any construction over the land acquired. The Opposite Party Nos.5 to 7 made construction and let it out to the Petitioner on rent. As such the Petitioner is not entitled to the compensation for the structure. It is his submission that although 3G award has been passed in their favour and the Opposite Party Nos.5 to 7 have already received compensation for land value but they have not yet received compensation for structure due to the objection raised by the Petitioner. He therefore, submits that the compensation should be released in favour of the Opposite Party Nos.5 to 7 at the earliest. 5. Mr. Pattnaik, learned Counsel for the National Highways Authority referring to the Counter Affidavit submits that although the compensation for land value has already been released in favour of the Opposite Party Nos.5 to 7 but there being a dispute with regard to the structure, the same is kept in deposit and has not yet been released. 5.1. He however, submits that in view of the inter se dispute with regard to receipt of compensation towards structure over the acquired land, the matter should be referred to the Principal Civil Court having jurisdiction over the acquired land. He therefore, submits that the Competent Authority, Land Acquisition is taking steps to refer the matter to the Principal Civil Court having jurisdiction over the land acquired for adjudication of the dispute and release of compensation towards structure. 6. Mr. Banji, learned Counsel however, submits that the Opposite Party Nos.5 to 7 have already filed an application on 20.01.2026 before the Competent Authority, Land Acquisition under the Act to refer the matter to the Principal Civil Court under Section 3-H(4) of the Act. 7. Upon hearing learned Counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the conflicting claim of Petitioner vis-à-vis Opposite Party Nos.5 to 7 to receive the compensation towards structure over the land acquired, it is directed that the Competent Authority, Land Acquisition under the Act shall refer the matter to the Principal Civil Court having jurisdiction over the acquired land as expeditiously as possible preferably by 15th June, 2026 and intimate the Petitioner and Opposite Party Nos.5 to 7 accordingly to participate in the proceeding before the Principal Civil Court. 8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of accordingly. 9. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the claim of the Petitioner and Opposite Party Nos.5 to 7 to receive the compensation towards structure over the acquired land. 10. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge (S.K. Mishra) Judge Banita Designation: SR. STENOGRAPHER