W.P.(C) No.34871 of 2025 p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.34871 of 2025 (In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India) Sadhu Nayak@Banjara …. Petitioner -versus- Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, Lower Indra Irrigation Project, Khariar, Dist.-Nuapada …. Opposite Party Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- For Petitioner : Mr. K.C. Dash, Advocate For Opposite Party : Mr. T.K. Dash, A.G.A. CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY JUDGMENT 16th March 2026 B.P. Routray, J. 1. Heard Mr. K.C Dash, learned Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. T.K Dash, learned Additional Government Advocate for State- Opposite Party. 2. The Petitioner is the land looser, whose land measuring Ac.1.30 decimals has been acquired by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 25-Mar-2026 16:41:41 Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) No.34871 of 2025 p. 2 Lower Indravati Irrigation Project. Dissatisfied with the amount of land acquisition compensation, he raised reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, “the Act”). The same was registered as LAR Case No.189 of 2010 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nuapada. Due to non-appearance of the Petitioner in the said case, the proceedings under Section 18 in LAR Case No.189 of 2010 was closed by returning reference in original to the Land Acquisition Officer vide order dated 28.01.2014. Subsequently, the Petitioner applied for restoration of LAR Case No.189/2010 in the year 2018, i.e. on 06.07.2018, by filing an application for restoration. Said restoration petition was registered as CMA No.45/2018. The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nuapada vide his order dated 19.06.2025 dismissed the prayer for restoration made by the Petitioner on the ground that there is delay of four years five months in applying for restoration which is not explained satisfactorily. Said impugned order dated 19.06.2025 of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nuapada in rejecting the prayer for restoration of LAR Case No.189 of 2010 is challenged in the present writ petition. 3. The fact of acquisition of land measuring Ac.1.30 decimals of the Petitioner by Special Land Acquisition Officer for the project Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 25-Mar-2026 16:41:41 Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) No.34871 of 2025 p. 3 concerned is not disputed. The reference under Section 18 of the Act by way of objection for enhanced compensation was sent to the court and registered as LAR Case No.189 of 2010. The simple question arises here that, whether such a reference under Section 18 of the Act can be closed for default of appearance by the claimant ? 4. The procedure as prescribed under the Act upon registration of the reference under Section 18 is to proceed in terms of Section 20 and Section 26 of the Act. Section 18 of the Act when authorizes the person aggrieved to raise a reference for enhanced compensation against the award amount and upon receipt of such valid reference. Section 20 requires the court to proceed for determination of the objection by holding necessary enquiry for the amount claimed. In terms of Section 26 of the Act, the court is required to pass an award upon adjudication of the reference. It is true that if the party will not cooperate for adjudication of the reference under Section 18 of the Act, the court would be impaired from the process of effective adjudication. But that never mandate the court to close the proceeding abruptly particularly when a prayer for restoration of the proceeding is made. Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 25-Mar-2026 16:41:41 Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) No.34871 of 2025 p. 4 5. In Khazan Singh (Dead) By LRS vs. Union of India, ( 2002) 2 SCC 242, the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held as follows:- “7. The provisions above subsumed would thus make it clear that the civil court has to pass an award in answer to the reference made by the Collector under Section 18 of the Act. If any party to whom notice has been served by the civil court did not participate in the inquiry it would only be at his risk because an award would be passed perhaps to the detriment of the party concerned. But non-participation of any party would not confer jurisdiction on the civil court to dismiss the reference for default. 8. It appears that various High Courts have taken the aforesaid view in a number of decisions: Abdul Karim v. State of M.P. [AIR 1964 MP 1 : 1963 MPLJ 867] , Bhadar Munda v. Dhuchua Oraon [AIR 1970 Pat 209 :1970 BLJR 8] , Shyam Shankar Sahai v. State of Bihar [AIR 1974 Pat 176 : 1974 BLJR 162] , Joseph v. Govt. of Kerala [(1991) 2 KLT 69] and Jogi Sahu v. Collector [AIR 1991 Ori 283] .” 6. As seen from the impugned order under Annexure-1, the learned civil court while dealing with the restoration application of the Petitioner have rejected the same mainly on the ground of delay of four years five months without touching to the contention of the Petitioner regarding his non-appearance whether the same is sufficient to justify his non-appearance before the court on the date fixed. It simply goes on saying that the delay appeared in applying for restoration of the referral proceeding is beyond the limitation period in terms of Order 9 Rule 9, C.P.C. and therefore, no sufficient cause is seen on the part of the claimant to allow the prayer for restoration. Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 25-Mar-2026 16:41:41 Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) No.34871 of 2025 p. 5 7. It is the specific plea of the Petitioner being the claimant that, he has migrated to outside the State as a labourer to sustain his livelihood and therefore, he could not appear before the court on last two occasions leading to dismissal of the case. Such contention of the claimant being bona-fide and genuine ground cannot be easily discarded by the court on the guise of delay to approach the court, particularly in a matter relating to adjudication of enhanced compensation in terms of Section 18 of the Act. 8. As settled in the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court in Khazan Singh (supra) the approach of the learned civil court to close the reference amounting to dismissal of the case for default cannot be held sustainable in the facts of the present case. As such, this Court without any hesitation is inclined to set aside the impugned order by allowing the prayer for restoration of the Petitioner made before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division). 9. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 19.06.2025 of learned civil Judge (Senior Division), Nuapada is set aside. The prayer of the Petitioner for restoration of LAR Case Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 25-Mar-2026 16:41:41 Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) No.34871 of 2025 p. 6 No.189 of 2010 is allowed and the same is restored on the file of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nuapada. (B.P. Routray) Judge B.K. Barik/A.R.-cum-Senior Secretary