As per case facts, the appellant challenged two awards from a Land Acquisition case, which had been referred to the Civil Judge for apportionment. The appellant's main contention was that ...
No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case
LAA 01 of 2016 & LAA 02 of 2016 Page 1 of 28
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
Appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
---------------
LAA No.01 of 2016
CNR No.ODHC01-026864-2016
Ushabati Patel @ Naik … … Appellant
-Versus-
Champabati Patel and
others
… … Respondents
LAA No.02 of 2016
CNR No.ODHC01-052831-2016
Ushabati Patel @ Naik … … Appellant
-Versus-
Champabati Patel and
others
… … Respondents
Advocates appeared in the case:
For Appellant : Mr. R.K. Mohanty, Senior
Advocate along with
Mr. A. Mohanty, Advocate
For Respondents : Mr. A.K. Nanda, Advocate and
Mr. G.N. Sahu, Advocate
(For Respondent Nos.1 & 2)
Mr. P.K. Mohanty, ASC
(For Respondent No.3)
Mr. A.P. Bose, Advocate and
Ms. R.P. Chaterjee, Advocate
(For Respondent Nos.8(a) to 8(f)
LAA/1/2016
ODHC010268642016
2026:OHC:34
LAA 01 of 2016 & LAA 02 of 2016 Page 2 of 28
------------------
CORAM:
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO
J U D G M E N T
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing : 20.05.2026
Date of Judgment : 14.08.2026
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO, J.
1. The appellant has filed the appeals under Section 54 of
the Land Acquisition Act, challenging two awards, dated
04.12.2015 in LA Reference Case No.25 of 2014 and LA
Reference Case No.26 of 2014, both the awards arising out
of LA case No.14 of 2010 of the Special Land Acquisition
Officer, Ultra Mega Power Project, Sundargarh (hereinafter
the LAO, for short).
The awards have been made by the Referral Court,
learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sundargarh pursuant
to references made by the LAO under sections 18 and 30 of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
2. Both the appeals are taken up together arising out of
similar judgments pertaining to one land acquisition
proceeding. The quantum of compensation awarded is not
under challenge. The pleadings and evidences in both the
proceedings before the learned referral Court out of which
the present appeals arise are identical.
The facts in brief
3. To appreciate the case of the appellant and the
contentions of the respondents in the appeals in their
LAA 01 of 2016 & LAA 02 of 2016 Page 3 of 28
response, the genealogy and the chronological events with
the facts are reproduced herein:
Janardan Naik
Karunakar Sovakar
Prasanna Minaketan (dead) Champabati Saraswati
(R-4) = Ushabati wife (Apt.) (R-1) (R-2)
(claim share as daughters of Karunakar)
Bikram Bikash Prakash
(R-5) (R-6) (R-7)
28.04.2010: The Dept. of Revenue and Disaster
Management, Govt. of Odisha acquired two properties in
Mouza Lankahuda and passed award U/s. 11 of the Act in
respect of,
i) Khata No.4, Ac.27.860 dec. (LA Reference Case
no.25/2014, pertaining to LAA No.1/2016) for a
compensation of Rs.6,33,27,174/-.
ii) Khata No.5, Ac.21.150 dec. (LA Reference
Caseno.26/2014, pertaining to LAA No.2/2016)
for a compensation of Rs.4,80,75,008/-.
14.07.2013: Notice issued U/s. 9 of the Act inviting
objections from the interested persons in respect of the
acquired lands.
25.07.2013: Respondents No.1 and 2 filed a petition
claiming 1/4
th share each in the awarded amounts.
08.08.2013: Respondents No.1 and 2 filed WP(C)
No.18413/2013 praying for a direction to release 1/4
th share
each in the awarded amount or refer the claim U/s.30 of the
Act.
23.04.2014: WP(C) No.18413/2014 was disposed of
with the following direction:
LAA 01 of 2016 & LAA 02 of 2016 Page 4 of 28
“This petition seeks direction to refer the matter
under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
for the self same relief, the petitioners approached
the opposite party No.1 by way of application dt.
25.07.2013, Annexure-3, which has not been
decided.
In view of the above, we direct the opposite party
No.1 to dispose of the said application of the
petitioners in accordance with law, as for as
possible, within one month from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.
No reference need be made to the extent claim of
parties is undisputed. The undisputed amount
may be paid as per award.
The petition is disposed of accordingly.”
14.10.2014: The awarded amount was deposited in
the treasury.
14.12.2015: In terms of the order of this Court the
LAO referred the matter to the Civil Court U/s.18 and 30 of
the Act.
4. The compensation amount awarded in the LA case
Rs.6,33,27,174/- (rupees six crores thirty three lakhs
twenty seven thousand one hundred seventy four only) is
not disputed by any of the parties and no enhancement is
sought for. The appeal by the appellant is with a prayer to
set aside the judgments rendered in the references and to
declare that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 in both the appeals
are not entitled to any share of the compensation awarded.
LAA 01 of 2016 & LAA 02 of 2016 Page 5 of 28
5. The present appellant was the Opp. Party No.3 before
the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sundargarh in the
Referral proceedings i.e. LA Reference Case No.25 of 2014
and LA Reference Case No.26 of 2014.
The respondents No.1, 2 [2(a) to 2(e)] were the
petitioners before the learned referral Court.
The respondent No.3-Special Land Acquisition Officer
was the Opp. Party No.1 before the learned referral Court.
The respondents No.4 to 8 and 8(a) to 8(f) were the
Opp. Party Nos.4 to 7. Some of the respondents during
pendency of these appeals unfortunately passed away, they
have been substituted by the respective legal heirs.
The respondents No.1 and 2 [2(a) to 2(e)] are the
contesting respondents as the appellant disputes their
share/claim in the land acquisition compensation. The
share of the other proforma respondents i.e. respondents
No.4 to 8 [respondents No.8(a) to 8(f)] are not disputed.
6. Notices to the respondents/proforma respondents were
issued by the Coordinate Bench on 18.02.2026. On the said
date by interim order, the awarded amount was directed not
to be disbursed to any of the parties till the next date.
Thereafter, the matter was listed before Coordinate Benches
on several dates i.e. 17.08.2022, 20.10.2022, 01.12.2023
and 13.12.2023.
On 09.01.2024, I.A. Nos.3, 4 and 5 of 2024 were taken
up by the Coordinate Bench. The I.A. seeking substitution of
the deceased respondent No.2 as well as setting aside the
LAA 01 of 2016 & LAA 02 of 2016 Page 6 of 28
abatement were allowed after condoning the delay in filing
the substitution application. Similarly, I.A. Nos.6, 7 and 8
with similar prayers for substituting deceased respondent
No.8 and for setting aside the abatement and condonation of
delay in filing the substitution application, were allowed and
disposed of. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned on several
dates i.e. from 14.03.2024 till 29.04.2025.
Efforts to achieve a settlement acceptable to the parties
by mediation
7. Considering the age of the appellant being 65 years
and respondent No.1 being 70 years and respondent No.2
having passed away during pendency of the appeal, on
09.04.2026, both the appeals were referred by this Court to
Mediation for the Nation 2.0.
Taking note of the fact that the matter is from the
district of Sundargarh which is at a distance of more than
300 kms. from the High Court, it was directed that the
matter shall be included in the Mediation for Nation 2.0,
before the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA),
Sundargarh. The parties through their counsel were
directed to appear before the learned Secretary, DLSA,
Sundargarh for appointment of trained Mediator. Soft copy
of the required records were directed to be and were
forwarded by the Registry of this Court to the learned
Secretary, DLSA, Sundargarh.
8. The learned instructing counsel for the appellant as
well as the learned counsel for the respondents were
requested to intimate the parties. The learned Secretary,
LAA 01 of 2016 & LAA 02 of 2016 Page 7 of 28
DLSA, Sundargarh was directed to fix a date and intimate
the parties in their respective addresses for appearance to
start mediation. The parties were directed to appear before
the learned Secretary, DLSA, Sundargarh on 27.04.2026.
Thereafter, the matter was taken up for mediation
before DLSA, Sundargarh. The learned Secretary, DLSA,
Sundargarh by letter dated 04.05.2026 addressed to the
Registry of this Court intimated that the matter was posted
to 08.05.2026 for mediation.
Thereafter, by letter dated 11.05.2026, report has been
submitted by the learned Secretary DLSA received in the
Registry which indicates that the DMC case No.441 of 2026
has been disposed of as non-starter.
9. The efforts for mediation could not achieve the result,
accordingly the matters are finally heard and are disposed
of by this judgment.
10. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. R.K. Mohanty was heard
assisted by learned counsel Mr. Animesh Mohanty for the
appellant. Mr. A.K. Nanda, learned counsel assisted by Mr.
G.N. Sahu, learned counsel was heard on behalf of
respondent Nos.1 and 2 [2(a) to 2(e)]. Mr. A.P. Bose, learned
counsel assisted by Ms. R.P. Chaterjee, learned counsel was
heard on behalf of Respondent No.8 [Respondents No.8(a) to
8(f)]. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel Mr. P.K. Mohanty
representing the Special Land Acquisition Officer was also
heard.
LAA 01 of 2016 & LAA 02 of 2016 Page 8 of 28
The Judgment(s) by the learned Referral Court
11. Genealogy clarifying the relationship among the parties
is reproduced again:
Janardan Naik
Karunakar Sovakar
Prasanna Minaketan (dead) Champabati Saraswati
(R-4) = Ushabati (wife) (Apt.) (R-1) (R-2)
(both claim share as daughters
of Karunakar)
Bikram Bikash Prakash
(R-5) (R-6) (R-7)
From the Genealogy reflected above, the branch of
Karunakar indicates that Karunakar had two daughters,
Champabati (respondent No.1) and Saraswati (respondent
No.2) and two sons Prasanna (respondent No.4) and
Minaketan. Minaketan having passed away, his surviving
wife Ushabati is the appellant in the present appeals. Three
sons of Minaketan and Ushabati are proforma respondents
Nos.5, 6 and 7.
12. In the proceeding before the learned Civil Judge
(Senior Division) Minaketan disputed and his wife Ushabati
being the appellant in the present appeals disputes
Champabati (R1) and Saraswati (R2) to be the sisters of her
husband Minaketan-daughters of Karunakar. The claim of
the appellant is supported by respondent Nos.4 to 7.
LAA 01 of 2016 & LAA 02 of 2016 Page 9 of 28
13. Learned referral Court has answered the reference U/s
18 of the LA Act 1894, giving the following findings:
“a) The Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the daughters
of Karunakar.
b) By the partition under Annexure-D Karunakar
could not have bestowed exclusive properties on
Prasanna and Minaketan in the absence of any
registration.
c) Out of the compensation amount Respondents
No.1 and 2 are entitled to get 1/12
th share each
and Parsuram and Minaketan, 5/12
th share each.
d) Respondent No.8 is entitled to compensation in
respect of his purchased area of Ac.0.24 dec.
e) The reference was thus answered in favour of
Respondents No.1, 2 and 8.”
14. Based upon the above findings, consequential reliefs
have been granted by the referral Court: learned Senior Civil
Judge, Sundargarh along with judgment dated 14.12.2015.
“The L.A. reference be and the same is allowed on
contest against the Ops with the following
apportionment. Out of the total compensation
amount of Rs.6,33,27,174/-, awarded with respect
of acquisition of the land measuring an area of
Ac.27.860 decimals under Hal Khata no.4 of
mouza Lankahuda, after division of the same in
four equal shares, a fraction amount of Rs.2/-
becomes surplus, which is required to be adjusted
in the share of one of the parties. As such, the
petitioners namely Champabati, Saraswati and Op
No.2 Prasanna are entitled to receive compensation
of Rs.1,58,31,793/- (Rupees one crore fifty eight
lakhs thirty one thousand seven hundred ninety
LAA 01 of 2016 & LAA 02 of 2016 Page 10 of 28
three) only each, whereas the legal heirs of
Minaketan i.e. the Ops 3 to 6 are jointly entitled to
receive a sum of Rs.1,58,31,795/- (rupees one
crore fifty eight lakhs thirty one thousand seven
hundred ninety five) only. The L.A. Reference is
accordingly answered and disposed of with the
aforesaid apportionment.”
15. By the impugned judgment it is directed Respondents
No.1 and 2 and proforma Respondent No.4 are entitled to
Rs.1,58,31,793/- each. The present appellant along with
proforma Respondents No.5 to 7 have been jointly awarded
Rs.1,58,31,795/-.
The quantum of compensation determined has become
final, not being challenged by anybody. The appellant has
filed Misc. Case No.17 and 18 of 2017 praying to release the
admitted share pending disposal of the appeal.
Submissions on behalf of the appellant:
16. The submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for
appellant are that during pendency of the proceedings in the
Civil Court the Appellant along with her three sons
Respondents No.5 to 7 filed application on 14.11.2014 for
releasing the undisputed share in their favour. On
10.02.2015 the learned Court below rejected such prayer.
Challenging the order, the appellant filed WP(C)
Nos.1030/2016 and 1031/2016 which were disposed of
granting liberty to the appellant to move the appropriate
forum as the impugned award had already been passed.
LAA 01 of 2016 & LAA 02 of 2016 Page 11 of 28
17. It is submitted that the learned trial Court proceeded
on an error of record to the effect that the Opp. Party No.3-
deceased appellant (since substituted) had admitted in his
depositions that the Respondents No.1 and 2 are daughters
of Karunakar. In fact, it is clear case of the Appellant-Opp.
Party No.3 that the respondent(s) 1 and 2 are not the
daughters for which they had not been given any share in
Ext.D, a deed ‘showing partition of property’, which can also
be treated as a ‘Will’.
It is submitted the learned referral Court erred in law
by ignoring Ext.D for its non-registration; at least the
learned Court should have utilized the same for the
collateral purpose of deciding the question of daughtership
of the Respondent Nos.1 & 2. Moreover, the document could
have been construed as a Will bestowing certain properties
on Prasanna (R-4) and Minaketan (husband of Appellant) to
the exclusion of others.
18. It is alternatively argued by learned Senior Counsel for
appellants that probate being not required and the
document (Ext.D) having not been challenged should have
been accepted as a document bestowing certain properties
distinctly on the two brothers Prasanna and Minaketan, son
of Karunakar to the exclusion of the daughters if any. That
apart the said document if read in its proper perspective will
reveal that it is a document recording a ‘complete earlier
partition’ and not creating a partition for the first time.
LAA 01 of 2016 & LAA 02 of 2016 Page 12 of 28
Submissions on behalf of the Respondents
19. The submissions of the learned counsel Mr. Nanda are
that the case of the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 is that they are
the daughters of Karunakar.
It is submitted, during trial the Opp. Party No.2 in the
proceeding before learned referral Court namely Prasanna,
and Opp. Party Nos.3 to 6 in the said proceeding have
admitted present Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to be the
daughters of Karunakar. Learned counsel Mr. Nanda refers
to para 9 of the Judgment dated 14.12.2015 i.e. under
challenge: Adhar Card of P.W.1 marked as Ext.2 shows that
P.W.1 is the daughter of Karunakar.
20. Mr. Nanda, learned counsel submits that the settled
principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma and others
1 as held
in Paragraph 129 of the said judgment, the provisions
contained in the substituted Section 6 of the Hindu
Succession Act, 1956 confer status of coparcener on the
daughter born before or after amendment, in the same
manner as son, with the same rights and liabilities. The
daughters cannot be deprived of their right of equality
conferred upon them by Section 6.
21. It is submitted in view of the evidence of Prasanna
Naik: O.P.W.1 at Paragraph 11, admitting that the
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are his sisters, the learned Senior
Civil Judge, Sundargarh by appreciation of the facts and the
1
AIR 2020 SC 3717: (2020) 9 SCC 1
LAA 01 of 2016 & LAA 02 of 2016 Page 13 of 28
law in their proper perspective has given findings in
Paragraph 9 and 10 of the judgment.
22. It is submitted, admittedly the Respondent No.1 and
mother of Respondent Nos.2(a) to 2(e) are daughters of
Karunakar and the judgment dated 14.12.2015 by the
learned Senior Civil Judge, Sundargarh is legal and
justified.
Submission is: there being no infirmity or illegality in
the impugned judgments, both the Land Acquisition
Appeals are not to be interfered with and are liable to be
dismissed.
Submissions of learned counsel for the parties regarding
apportionment of the amount awarded
23. Learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Nanda refers
to direction of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sundargarh
regarding apportionment of the compensation in terms of
the genealogy. He submits that the issue is no more res
integra, the share of the daughter who becomes coparcener
with effect from the date of amendment of Hindu Succession
Act, 1956 i.e. 09-09-2005 has to be granted/determined
whether or not she was born before the said amendment.
It is submitted, the amendment to the Hindu
Succession Act, 1956 has conferred right of daughters in
coparcenary property under substituted section 6 of the
1956 Act. He relies on the decision of the larger Bench of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vineeta Sharma (supra).
24. Learned Senior Counsel for appellant submits that the
issue regarding share of the daughters having been
LAA 01 of 2016 & LAA 02 of 2016 Page 14 of 28
authoritatively dealt with and settled by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Vineeta Sharma (supra) needs no
further deliberation before this Court.
Discussions of the materials/evidence on record,
pleadings, submissions made, the case law and
analysis of the judgment(s) under challenge
25. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Sundargarh has relied
upon the evidences of P.W.1-Champabati-present
respondent No.1 and another witness on behalf of the
plaintiffs/petitioners. The present proforma respondent No.4
was the Opp. Party No.2 before the learned referral Court.
He himself appeared as O.P.W.1 and examined two other
witnesses in his favour. The present appellant being Opp.
Party No.3 before the learned referral Court and the present
proforma respondent Nos.5, 6 and 7 being the Opp. Parties
No.4, 5 and 6 supported the Opp. Party No.3. The present
proforma respondent No.5 was examined as the witness on
their behalf. The present proforma respondent No.8 being
Opp. Party No.7 before the learned referral Court examined
witness: O.P.W.5.
The LCR was called for and has been placed for
reference of this Court.
26. The petitioners before the learned referral Court-
present respondent Nos.1 and 2 produced Exts.1 to 4
supporting their claim which were marked as exhibits. The
husband of present appellant produced Exts.A to D marked
as exhibits in support of his claim.
LAA 01 of 2016 & LAA 02 of 2016 Page 15 of 28
27. Based on the pleadings, depositions, cross-
examination of the witnesses from both the sides and by
referring to and dealing with the admitted documents
marked as exhibits, the learned Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Sundargarh dealt with the issues and has
reflected in the judgment and order, which are reproduced
herein:
“9. … it is felt prudent to reflect some admitted
facts of the case. Admittedly, the petitioners and
the Op no.2 are related to each other as sisters and
brother respectively. It is also an admitted fact that,
in their show cause, the Op No.2 and so also the
Op Nos.3 to 6 have denied the petitioners to be the
daughters of Karunakar Naik, whereas during trial,
they have admitted the petitioners to be the
daughters of Karunakar. It is also an admitted fact
that, the entire land under hal khata nos.4, 5 and 6
of mouza Lankahuda have been acquired by the
govt. for the UMP Projecct and compensation
amount has already been awarded in favour of the
awardees. But now it is to be decided, whether the
petitioners are the daughters and legal heirs of
Karunakar and if so, if they have got any right, title
and interest over the property of their father in
respect of the land under khata no.4 or not.”
28. Dealing with the submission and assertion of the
petitioners before the learned referral Court that they are
the daughters of Karunakar, the learned Judge has
discussed the evidence and given the findings which are
reproduced herein:
“10. … the petitioners have examined the petitioner
no.1 examined as P.W.1, who has stated on oath
that, she and her sister Saraswati are the daughters
of Karunakara Naik, who was the recorded tenant
LAA 01 of 2016 & LAA 02 of 2016 Page 16 of 28
of the lands under hal khata nos. 4, 5 and 6 of
mouza Lankahuda. P.W.1 has proved her original
Adhar card, which clearly shows that she is the
daughter of Karunakara Naik. Nothing substantial
has been elicited from the mouth of P.W.1 to
dislodge her testimony with regard to the fact that,
she is the daughter of Karunakar Naik. Rather, none
of the Ops has challenged the said Adhar card vide
Ext.2 during her cross-examination. The petitioners
have also examined one Jamuna Naik who is
examined as P.W.2. Her evidence speaks about the
inter-se relationship of the parties. From the
testimony of P.W.2 it is clear that, the petitioners are
the daughters of Karunakara Naik and the sisters of
Op No.2 and Minaketan. Such evidence of P.W.2 has
not been demolished during cross-examination by
the Ops which remained unassailed. At this
juncture, the testimony of O.P.W.1 (Prasanna Naik)
shows that, the petitioners are his sisters, because
in para-11 of his cross-examination, he has
admitted the fact that Saraswati, Champa and
Bishnu are his three sisters and out of them, Bishnu
is dead. He has also admitted that, Saraswati and
Champabati are alive now: Thus, from the aforesaid
evidence of the petitioners and Op no.2, it is crystal
clear that, the present petitioners are the daughters
of Karunakara Naik and as such, the Op No.2 is
their brother. In this context, it may be noted here
that, the Op Nos.2 to 6 in their show cause, have
suppressed the truth by not admitting the petitioners
to be the daughters of Karunakara, whereas during
trial, all of them admitted the same, for which it can
be said that the present Op Nos.2 to 6, in order to
swallow the entire compensation amount in respect
of acquisition of the land under khata no.4, were
misleading the Court by suppressing the material
fact.”
LAA 01 of 2016 & LAA 02 of 2016 Page 17 of 28
29. The learned referral Court has elaborately dealt with
the other contentions raised by the parties and has
answered them with the following findings:
“11. Now the question arises, whether the entire
properties of Karunakara has been partitioned
between his two sons or it was with him till his
death, being his exclusive property. In this regard, I
may mention here that, the Op Nos. 3 to 6 have not
pleaded in their show cause regarding any
partition between the two brothers by Karunakara
during his life time. At the cost of repetition, be it
mentioned here that, initially, the Op Nos. 3 to 6
have not admitted the petitioners to be the
daughters of Karunakara. However, the Op No.2
(O.P.W.1) has pleaded about partition of the
property of Karunakara during his life time and
further admitted in his cross-examination that, his
father died about 30 years ago and his father had
received bhogra settlement ROR in respect of khata
no.4 and his father was also possessing the said
bhogra land after receiving the ROR. Further, in
para-13 of his cross-examination, he has stated
that his father partitioned the bhogra land between
himself and his brother Minaketan by virtue of the
family partition deed, which has not been
registered. He has further stated that mutation was
effected in their names after the death of his father
on the basis of succession and not by virtue of
partition deed, as they have not produced the same
before the Tahasildar and that for the first time, he
has filed the partition deed in this Court. The other
witness Basanta Kumar Patel, who is examined as
O.P.W.2 has stated on oath that, his grand father
Nityananda scribed the family partition deed in his
presence and as he is acquainted with the hand
writing and signature of his grand father, he
proved the signature of his grand father vide
Ext.D/3. In his cross-examination, he has stated
that Karunakara Naik was succeeded by two sons
LAA 01 of 2016 & LAA 02 of 2016 Page 18 of 28
and after his death, his two sons Minaketan and
Prasanna are in possession of their respective
shares as per Ext.D and except those two persons,
no one else has ever possessed the land. This
witness has also admitted in para-11 of his cross-
examination that Karunakara was having three
daughters namely Bishnu, Saraswati and Champa,
out of whom, Bishnu is dead now. As regards the
partition, this witness appears to have been
deposing falsehood, because in his evidence
affidavit, he has stated that, he has heard about
the partition, whereas while deposing in Court on
oath, he stated differently and claims his presence
at the time of preparation of the partition deed vide
Ext.D. Further, his evidence in cross-examination
also falsifies his testimony, because this witness in
para-12 of his cross-examination has stated that,
he was present at the time of partition and by then,
he was 25 years old. As it appears on 23.7.2015
when he was examined as O.P.W.2, he stated his
age as 60 years and as such, if the same will be
taken into account, then by the time of preparation
of the partition deed, certainly, he was a boy of 13
years of age and not a man of 25 years old as is
claimed by him.
12. Now coming to the evidence of Op No.4,
examined as O.P.W.4, he has stated that he was
not present when the suit land was partitioned by
his grand father. In addition to that, O.P.W.3 has
stated in para-11 of his cross-examination that, the
wife of Karunakara died after the partition. He has
further stated that he cannot say, if Karunakara
was looking after the entire property till his death
or not. He also cannot say, if the property was
recorded in his name or not. More so, O.P.W.5 who
is examined on behalf of the Op No.7, has stated in
his evidence that Karunakara was having three
daughters and two sons and till his death,
Karunakara was in cultivating possession of his
own land. At this juncture, the learned counsel for
LAA 01 of 2016 & LAA 02 of 2016 Page 19 of 28
the petitioners submitted that for the land under
khata no.5, the L.A.O has referred the matter which
has been registered as L.A. Ref. Case No.26/2014
and in the said case, the parties are same in
which, one of the witnesses i.e. O.P.W.6, examined
on behalf of Op No.7 has stated in para-10 of his
cross-examination that, Karunakara had not
partitioned the suit land among his sons and
daughters. Further, O.P.W.7 of that case, has
stated in para-10 of his cross-examination that,
Karunakara has not partitioned his land among his
sons and daughters. Further, O.P.W.8 of that case
has also stated in para-12 of his cross-examination
that, Karunakara was in cultivating possession of
his landed property till his death.
13. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the Ops
3 to 6 in course of argument, submitted that the
document vide Ext.D is a family settlement and the
same is admissible in evidence being a document
of the year 1968. Undoubtedly, on perusal of the
said document, it is found that the same is a
partition deed. Section 91 of the Evidence Act
speaks that, when there is a written document to
ascertain the intention of the document, the
document itself has to be perused and no outside
evidence is permissible. As it appears, the
document, itself, shows that through it the land has
been partitioned. But on perusal of the document, it
is not clear, as to whether the suit land has been
partitioned or not. In this regard, it cannot be lost
sight of the fact that, under the Indian Stamp Act,
partition document requires proper stamp. Under
Section 3 of the Indian Stamp Act, when a
document which requires to be properly stamped
and is enumerated in the schedule of the Stamp
Act, if not properly stamped, then it is inadmissible.
As per Section 35, no instrument chargeable with
duty shall be admitted in evidence for any purpose
by any person having by law or consent of parties
authority to receive evidence, or shall be acted
LAA 01 of 2016 & LAA 02 of 2016 Page 20 of 28
upon, registered or authenticated by any such
person or by any public officer, unless such
instrument is duly stamped.”
30. The learned referral Court has concluded that the
entire properties of Karunakar was not partitioned till his
death. By way of partition, the property could not have been
partitioned giving share only to his sons, Respondent No.4
and deceased husband of the appellant.
31. Further analysis of evidence, and the findings of the
learned referral Court there upon, are reproduced herein:
“16. Further, in course of argument, the learned
counsel for the Op Nos.3 to 6 has contended that,
Karunakar has blended the said separate property
and as such, the present petitioners shall have no
right over the said property of Karunakar, even
though they are his class-I heirs. In this regard, on
perusal of the show cause of the Ops, nowhere the
Ops have taken such a plea regarding blending. As
such a plea is beyond pleading, no evidence led in
that aspect, is inadmissible to that effect. Further,
the witnesses examined on behalf of the Ops have
clearly proved that Karunakara was possessing
the land till his death and he has not partitioned
his landed property among his sons and
daughters. This shows that the plea of blending is
a false one. Merely because an owner allows his
other family members to possess his land, it does
not show that others have title over it. When the Op
No.2 Prasanna claims partition, the other Ops does
not put their claim regarding partition in their show
cause. It is also evident from the materials
available on record that, in the mutation
proceeding, that document was also not produced
and as such, mutation was effected basing on
succession and not by virtue of partition, which the
Op No.2 has admitted in para-13 of his cross-
LAA 01 of 2016 & LAA 02 of 2016 Page 21 of 28
examination. So, when there are two daughters
(the present petitioners), who are the class-I heirs
and their names were not recorded in col.2 of the
R.O.Rs, this shows that mutation has been
obtained fraudulently by suppressing the materials
facts and by keeping the present petitioners in
dark, which is very much apparent from the show
cause of the Ops itself. In that view of the matter,
when it is proved by evidence that, the properties
in question are the separate properties of
Karunakara, as per Section 8 of the Hindu
Succession Act, the petitioners will take the
properties simultaneously. That besides, as per
Section 10, each of the sons and daughters are
entitled to get one. Hence, the land of khata no.4 is
required to be partitioned equally among all the
four sons and daughters of Karunakara.
17. So far as the claim of the Op No.7 in respect of
the land for an area of Ac.0.24 decimals out of plot
no.1554 under hal of Khata no.5 is concerned, it
may be mentioned here that although the said Op
no.7 entered appearance in this case and filed his
show cause and so also led evidence by adducing
one witness, yet his claim revolves around hal
khata no.5, which is to be decided in L.A.
Reference case No.26/2014 and as such, the same
not being the subject matter of this case, is not
taken up for consideration in this case. Hence,
there is no need to discuss and analyze the
evidence concerning the share of the Op No.7 in
this reference.”
[Underlined portions are considered
and also emphasized for consideration
of present appeals by this Court]
32. To support his conclusions, the learned Civil Judge
(Senior Division) has analyzed and applied the law laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court in
various decisions, which are summarized herein:
LAA 01 of 2016 & LAA 02 of 2016 Page 22 of 28
32.1 Golak Behari Biswal and another Vrs. Karunakar
Rout
2
: wherein this Court has considered the principles
regarding requirement as to registration of a document. It
has been held for a document comprising settlement
between members of family, itself creating or extinguishing
right to property or enlarging or limiting it-Registration is
compulsory for it to be admissible in evidence.
32.2 Hon'ble Supreme Court in Roshan Singh and
others Vrs. Zile Singh and others
3
have laid down that an
instrument of partition which operates or is intended to
operate as a declared volition constituting or severing
ownership and causes a change of legal relation to the
property divided amongst the parties to it, requires
registration under section 17(1)(b) of the Indian Registration
Act, 1908. The said section lays down that a document for
which registration is compulsory should, by its own force,
operate or purport to operate to create or declare some right
in immovable property.
A partition may be effected orally; but if it is
subsequently reduced into form of a document and that
document purports by itself to effect a division and embodies
all the terms of bargain, it will be necessary to register it. If
it is not registered, Section 49 of the Act will prevent its
being admitted in evidence.
32.3 It is the settled law that mutation entries do not
convey or extinguish any title as laid down by the Hon'ble
2
AIR 1987 Ori 236
3
AIR 1988 SC 881
LAA 01 of 2016 & LAA 02 of 2016 Page 23 of 28
Supreme Court in H. Lakshmaiah Reddy & others Vrs.
Venkatesh Reddy
4
, wherein it has been observed that:
… Mutation of a property in the revenue record
does not create or extinguish title nor has it
any presumptive value on title. It only enables
the person in whose favour mutation is ordered
to pay the land revenue in question…
33. Now for consideration of the appeal against judgment
of learned Referral Court, this Court has gone through the
evidence of O.P.W.1 (at paragraph 11) as available in the
scanned copy of the LCR, and he has stated on oath thus:
“11. My father died about 30 years ago. We are
two brothers and three sisters. Bishnu, my sister is
dead and Saraswati and Champa are alive. My
father received the Bhogra settlement ROR in
respect of khata no.4 in 1963-64. My father
possessed the same after receiving the R.O.R. In
1977 the settlement operation took place. We have
not filed the ROR recorded in my father’s name in
respect of khata no.4 before the settlement
authorities. We are living separately since the time
of our father without any disturbance between us.”
The evidence of OPW1 remains unimpeached.
34. In considered opinion of this Court, the conclusions of
the learned referral Court based on the above evidence and
discussed in detail in the judgment as indicated
(underlined) above, is just and proper, inasmuch as any
ordinarily prudent, reasonable person would arrive at the
conclusion that the O.P.W.1-present respondent No.4 did
refer to present respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 as his
4
(2015) 14 SCC 784
LAA 01 of 2016 & LAA 02 of 2016 Page 24 of 28
two sisters and they being the surviving two daughters of
Karunakar; in his evidence also he did not support the
contention raised regarding partition of property in the
lifetime of Karunakar, the common ancestor.
35. In the inimitable words of Krishna Iyer, J speaking for
the larger Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dollar
Company, Madras v. Collector of Madras
5, at paragraph
4 of SCC print, the law regarding exercise of appellate power
by appellate Court has been summerised. The said
paragraph is reproduced herein:
“4. At the outset, we must warn ourselves of the
broad guideline that in an appeal from an award
granting compensation this Court will not interfere
unless there is something to show not merely that on
the balance of evidence it is possible to reach a
different conclusion but that the judgment cannot be
supported by reason of a wrong application of
principle or because some important point affecting
valuation has been overlooked or misapplied.
Moreover, there is a prudent condition to which the
appellate power, generally speaking, is subject. A
court of appeal interferes not when the judgment
under attack is not right but only when it is shown to
be wrong. These twin principles serve as backdrop to
our approach to the rival contentions in the case.”
[Underlined to supply emphasis]
The above observations have been made as the
Hon’ble Supreme Court considered an appeal seeking
enhancement of compensation awarded by the city civil
and the High Court, by a land owner whose property was
acquired by the State.
5
AIR 1975 SC 1670: (1975) 2 SCC 730
LAA 01 of 2016 & LAA 02 of 2016 Page 25 of 28
36. The principles summarized by the larger Bench of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in Dollar Company (supra) have been
reiterated in Padma Uppal v. State of Punjab
6
(paragraph 9 of SCC print) and is quoted herein:
“9. Let us now deal with the second set of the
aforesaid eight appeals preferred by the State of
Punjab. While doing so, it would be well to recall
that it is well established that in an appeal from an
award granting compensation, this Court should not
interfere unless there is a wrong application of any
well-settled principle or unless there is something to
show not merely that on the balance of evidence it is
possible to reach a different conclusion but that the
judgment cannot be supported by reason of a wrong
application of a principle or because some important
point affecting valuation has been overlooked or
misapplied. Moreover, there is a prudent condition to
which the appellate power, generally speaking is
subject. A Court of appeal interferes not when the
judgment under attack is not right but only when it
is shown to be wrong. (See Special Land
Acquisition Officer, Bangalore v. T. Adinarayan
Setty [1959 Supp 1 SCR 404 : AIR 1959 SC 429
: 1959 Cri LJ 526] ; Dattatraya Shankarbhat
Ambalgi v. Collector of Sholapur [(1971) 3 SCC
43] and Dollar Company, Madras v. Collector of
Madras [(1975) 2 SCC 730]”
[Underlined to supply emphasis]
Conclusions
37. In considered view of this Court the principles of law
as laid down in Dollar Company (supra), reiterated in
6
(1977) 1 SCC 330
LAA 01 of 2016 & LAA 02 of 2016 Page 26 of 28
Padma Uppal (supra), Padma Uppal having followed earlier
decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Spl. LAO,
Bangalore; Dattatraya Shankarbhat Ambalgi ; have to be
followed and applied when this Court is considering the
appeals under Section 54 of the L.A. Act,1954. The
principles are still good law having been reiterated/referred
to in several subsequent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court.
38. Having considered the relevant provisions of law, the
pleadings of the parties, the submission of the learned
Senior Counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for
the respondents and by applying the principles enunciated
in the case law cited at the bar, referred to by the learned
Civil Judge, Senior Division and this Court;
it has to be and is held that the judgments and orders
dated 14.12.2015 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge,
Sundargarh in LA reference case No.25 of 2014 and in LA
reference case No.26 of 2014, both arising out of LA
caseNo.14 of 2010 of the Special LAO, UMPP, Sundargarh,
are just and proper; being based on consideration and
appreciation of relevant materials, evidences, pleadings on
record, and by application of correct propositions of law.
39. It is held that no case is made out by the appellant in
these Appeals U/s 54 of the LA Act for this Court to
interfere with the awards made U/s 18 of the LA Act, 1894.
Regarding the apportionment, this Court accepts the
contention of the learned counsel for the respondents as
LAA 01 of 2016 & LAA 02 of 2016 Page 27 of 28
well as the learned Senior Advocate for Appellant that it has
to be dealt with in terms of the judgment of the larger Bench
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vineeta Sharma (supra).
40. The only rider that can be added to the very well-
discussed judgments is that the apportionment/partition of
the amount deposited along with the accrued interest till the
date of disbursement, shall abide by and shall be in the
terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Vineeta Sharma (supra).
41. Before parting with the appeals, this Court puts on
record its appreciation of the able assistance rendered by
learned Senior Counsel Mr. R.K. Mohanty as well as learned
counsel Mr. A.K. Nanda and Mr. Bose in deciding the
appeals pending for more than ten years, the references
before learned Senior Civil Judge being of the year 2014 and
the acquisitions being of the year 2010. This Court also
records it’s appreciation of the endeavor of the learned
counsel in trying to arrive at a mediated settlement though
it could not be achieved.
42. Copies of this judgment shall be forwarded by the
Registry to the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sundargarh to be
made part of the records of LA reference case No. 25 of 2014
and LA reference case No.26 of 2014, both arising out of LA
case No.14 of 2010 of the Special LAO, UMPP, Sundargarh.
43. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Sundargarh/learned
Court in seisin of the matter shall immediately take steps
for determination of share of each of the appellants/legal
LAA 01 of 2016 & LAA 02 of 2016 Page 28 of 28
heirs and respondents/legal heirs, by following the principle
laid down in Vineeta Sharma (supra).
44. The amount so determined along with interest accrued
till disbursal shall be disbursed immediately in accordance
with law;
the learned Court shall not detain itself for
availability/appearance of all the parties/beneficiaries and
shall do well to determine share of each of the parties upon
apportionment and direct disbursal of the amount to the
parties whosoever are immediately available/ are appearing;
any of the parties if they do not appear shall be issued
notice by the learned Court in seisin, in their present
correct address to receive their share of the LA
compensation.
45. Both the land acquisition appeals fail and are
dismissed, both the awards under challenge are confirmed
with the further directions/clarifications indicated above.
All the subsisting interim orders stand vacated/merge
with the final directions.
Costs reluctantly made easy.
(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 14
th August, 2026/Gs/Rajesh
Login with google
Legal Notes
Add a Note....