IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.2037 of 2023 (An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India) ***** Ganesh Pradhan, S/o-Late Dayanidhi Pradhan, At Musakata, P.O-Bansajal, P.S.- Charmal, Dist-Sambalpur … . Petitioner -versus- 1. Union of India, represented by Secretary, Ministry of Railways, (Railway Board) Rail Bhavan, Raisina Road, New Delhi-110001, 2. Regional Manager, East Coast Railway, Bhubaneswar, District- Khurda, 3. Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Coast Railway, AT/PO/PS-Khetrajpur, Dist Sambalpur, 4. Special Land Acquisition Zone Officer, Sambalpur-Talcher Railway Line, Sambalpur. PO/PS & Dist.- Sambalpur … . Opp. Parties Advocates appeared : For Petitioner : Mr. Niranjan Panda, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. Manmaya Kumar Dash, Additional Standing Counsel CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA ---------------------------------------------------- Heard and disposed of on 15.07.2026 --------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT By the Bench; 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. Digitally Signed Signed by: SASHIKANT PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 20-Jul-2026 17:21:28 Signature Not Verified 2. Petitioner in this writ petition seeks to assail the order dated 21st August, 2009 (Annexure-4) passed by learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Redhakhol in L.A. Case No.70 of 1993 in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity ‘the Act’) and order dated 27th April, 2022 (Annexure-3) passed by in CMA No.03 of 2020, whereby learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Redhakhol refused to the recall order dated 21st August, 2009 passed in L.A. Case No.70 of 1993 on the ground of delay. 3. Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner being not satisfied with the award passed under Section 11 of the Act filed an application for enhancement of compensation. Accordingly, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Talcher-Sambalpur Rail Link, Sambalpur referred the matter to the Court of Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Sambalpur under Section 18 of the Act, which was registered as L.A. Case No.70 of 1993. In the said reference, although the Petitioner initially took part in the proceeding but, subsequently he was not intimated the date of posting of the reference for which he could not take part in the proceeding of the reference. On 21st August, 2009, the reference was taken up by learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Sambalpur. Recording absence of the Petitioner, learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Sambalpur confirmed the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Sambalpur. 3.1. It is submitted by Mr. Panda, learned counsel that the Petitioner had no knowledge about the date of hearing of the reference. However, on being getting information about the order dated 21st August, 2009, the Petitioner filed an application for recalling order dated 21st August, 2009 along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay in filing such application. The said application was registered as CMA No.03 of 2020. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Redhakhol, upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, vide his order dated 27th April, 2022, dismissed the CMA on contest holding therein that the CMA was filed 11 (eleven) years after the reference was disposed of and the delay in filing the CMA was not properly explained. 3.2. It is, thus, submitted that both the orders are illegal and unjustified in the eye of law, as learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Sambalpur was required to answer the reference on merit discussing the materials on record. Without adhering to the procedure, learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Sambalpur, vide order dated 21st August, 2009, confirmed the award under Section 11 of the Act on the plea that the Petitioner was absent on call from which, it appeared to the Court that he was not interested to pursue the matter. Further, learned Civil Judge committed illegality in rejecting the application under Section 151 C.P.C., i.e., CMA No.03 of 2020 holding that it is barred by limitation. He, therefore, submits that both the orders passed in L.A. Case No.70 of 1993 and CMA No.03 of 2020 are liable to be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Redhakhol for adjudication of the reference on merit. 4. Mr. Dash, learned Additional Standing Counsel vehemently objects to the same. It is his submission that on getting notice in reference under Section 18 of the Act, the Petitioner had entertained appearance through his Advocate and contested the reference. But, for the reasons best known to him, he subsequently preferred to remain absent on the date of hearing. Learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Sambalpur giving several opportunities to the Petitioner to participate in the hearing, ultimately confirmed the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Sambalpur vide order dated 21st August, 2009. Further, the CMA No.03 of 2020 was filed after a lapse of more than 11 (eleven) years. No explanation was offered for such inordinate delay in filing the petition under Section 151 C.P.C. to recall the order dated 21st August, 2009. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Redhakhol providing ample opportunity and discussing the materials on record, rejected the petition filed under Section 151 C.P.C. to recall order dated 21st August, 2009 on merit. Hence, the writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the materials on record. It appears from the record that reference under Section 18 of the Act was registered as L.A. Case No.70 of 1993 on the file of learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Sambalpur. The order sheet of L.A. Case No.70 of 1993 at Annexure-4 reveals that the Petitioner was absent at the time of call on different dates. However, the order sheet prior to 2nd December, 2008 in L.A. Case No. 70 of 1993 is not available on record. Thus, it is very difficult to ascertain as to whether the Petitioner was duly noticed in the reference or not, which is the mandate of law. However, learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Sambalpur, vide order dated 21st August, 2009 recording that the reference was of the year 1993 and the Petitioner was absent at the time of call, confirmed the award on an impression that the Petitioner may not be interested in pursuing the reference. 6. Law is well-settled that when a reference is made under Section 18 of the Act, the Civil Court to which the reference is made is obliged under law to adjudicate the reference on merit discussing the materials available on record. But, on a bare perusal of order dated 21st August, 2009, it appears that no such effort or endeavour has been made by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sambalpur while confirming the award under Section 11 of the Act. As such, the impugned order dated 21st August, 2009 (Annexure-4) passed in the reference under Section 18 of the Act is illegal and not sustainable in law. 7. It, however, appears from the record that after a lapse of 11 (eleven) years, the Petitioner filed an application under Section 151 C.P.C. to recall the order dated 21st August, 2009 and to permit the Petitioner to participate in the hearing of the reference. Although, learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Redhakhol held that the petition under Section 151 C.P.C. to be maintainable, but observing that the petition was hopelessly time-barred, dismissed the same vide order dated 27th April, 2022 (Annexure-3). When the initial order passed in the reference under Section 18 of the Act has been held to be illegal as learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Sambalpur did not make any endeavour to answer the reference on merit discussing the materials on record, learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Redhakhol should have allowed the CMA No.03 of 2020 filed under Section 151 C.P.C. by recalling the order dated 21st August, 2009, passed in the reference and permitted the Petitioner to participate in hearing of the reference. 8. In view of the above, both the orders under Annexures-3 and 4 are not sustainable in the eye of law and thus, the same are set aside. The matter is remitted to the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Redhakhol to hear and dispose of L.A Case No.70 of 1993, initiated under Section 18 of the Act on its own merit, giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. Since, the reference is of year 1993, learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Redhakhol should make an endeavour for early disposal of the same. 9. The parties are also directed to cooperate with the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Redhakhol for effective adjudication of the reference. 10. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Urgent certified copy of this judgment be granted on proper application. (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge (S.K. Mishra) Judge The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Dated the 15th day of July, 2026/ sashikant