IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.32616 of 2024 Pratap Chandra Bhuyan ….. Petitioner Ms. Namita Pattanaik, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others ..... Opp. Parties Mr. Jateswar Nayak, Addl. Govt. Advocate CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Order No. ORDER 20.01.2025 01. This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode). This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Pratap Chandra Bhuyan with a prayer to set aside the order dated 07.02.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Jagatsinghpur in C.M.A. No.100 of 2023 in which the petition filed by the petitioner under section 151 C.P.C. to recall the order dated 07.02.2023 along with the petition for condonation of delay has been rejected. It appears that the petition under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was received from L.A.O. on 16.01.2004 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagatsinghpur and accordingly, Land Acquisition Misc. Case No.303 of 2004 was registered. Thereafter, the matter was placed on different dates and then notice was issued and it was adjourned from time to time awaiting service return. When, the matter was taken up on 07.02.2023, learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Jagatsinghpur passed the order that the petitioner has already received the awarded amount of L.A. Collector and thereafter he made objection for higher compensation and accordingly, the order passed by the L.A. Collector regarding compensation was confirmed. The petitioner filed an application under section 151 C.P.C. before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Jagatsinghpur, which was registered as C.M.A. No.100 of 2023 arising out of L.A. Misc Case No.303 of 2004 with a prayer to recall the order passed on 07.02.2023, inter alia, on the ground that neither the petitioner was any point of time was served with any notice to the petitioner for his appearance nor through process server by the Court or by Regd. Post. In absence of the petitioner, the confirmation order of the Land Acquisition Officer has caused serious prejudice and also substantive loss to the petitioner, who is a land looser. It was further stated that there was neither any deliberate negligence nor any intentional laches on the part of the petitioner for his non-appearance on the dates fixed. Therefore, it was prayed to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by recalling the order dated 07.02.2023 and also to consider the application under section 151 C.P.C. for condonation of delay. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to section 20 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984, which deals with service of notice and it is stated, inter alia, that after the reference is made under section 18 of the said Act, the Court has to cause a notice specifying the day on which the Court will proceed to determine the objection, and will direct the appearance of the parties on that date and such notice has to be served, inter alia, on the applicant and all persons interested to the objection. The order sheet, which was relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner has been annexed to this writ petition as Annexure-1 series, which indicates that at no point of time, notice in L.A. Misc. Case No.303 of 2004 was served on the petitioner. Therefore, the observation made by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagatsinghpur vide order dated 07.02.2023 is that neither the petitioner nor his counsel is present is totally misconceived and such observation should have been made only if the notice would have been served on the petitioner in terms of section 20 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. After going through the application under section 151 C.P.C. so also the application for condonation of delay, we are of the view that the observation made by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagatsinghpur that there was laches on the part of the petitioner and no sufficient cause for condonation of delay has been shown is not acceptable. Learned counsel for the State has no serious objection to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. After hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties and on going through the averments taken in the writ petition and the petition under section 151 C.P.C. so also the application for condonation of delay, we are of the view that the impugned order dated 07.02.2023 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and therefore, the same is set aside and consequently the order dated 07.02.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagatsinghpur in L.A. Misc. Case No.303 of 2004 stands recalled. The petitioner shall appear before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagatsinghpur on 24.01.2025 and the matter be decided in accordance with law. The Court shall make every endeavour to dispose of the L.A. Misc. Case No.303 of 2004 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. We have not expressed any opinion on the merits of L.A. Misc. Case No.303 of 2004 by the Court below. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy as per Rules. ( S.K. Sahoo) Judge (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge Sipun Designation: Senior Stenographer