STATE OF ORISSA vs BIRANCHI NARAYAN DAS
- Court
- Odisha High Court
EXFA/1/2017
ODHC010202182017
2026:OHC:87-DB
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
Ex.F.A. No.1 of 2017
CNR No.ODHC010202182017
A Memorandum of appeal filed under
Order XLV, Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
*
State of Odisha
Represented through
Special Secretary to Government
General Administration &
Public Grievance Department
Odisha Secretariat
At/P.O.: Bhubaneswar
District: Khordha. … Appellant
(Judgment Debtor in
Execution Petition
No.2 of 2015)
ERSUS
-V -
1. Sri Biranchi Narayan Das
Aged about 68 years
Son of Late Balamukunda Das.
2. Sri Satya Narayan Das
Aged about 70 years
Son of Late Balamukunda Das.
3. Laxmi Narayan Das
Son of Late Balamukunda Das.
Since deceased through Lrs.:
Ex.F.A. No.1 of 2017 Page 1 of 49
a) Subrat Das
Aged about 46 years
Son of Late Laxmi Narayan Das.
b) Shreemati Das
(now dead, represented by Lrs.)
Aged about 76 years
Wife of Late Laxmi Narayan Das.
c) Sumanta Das
Aged about 44 years
Son of Late Laxmi Narayan Das.
All are residents of
Village:Nayapalli
P.O./P.S.: Nayapalli
Bhubaneswar
District: Khordha.
d) Sanghamitra Das
Aged about 48 years
Daughter of Late Laxmi Narayan Das
Resident of Flat No.101
Shyamakunja Apartment
Khan Nagar, Town/District: Cuttack
Odisha. … Respondents
(Decree Holders in
Execution Petition
. No.2 of 2015)
Counsel appeared for the parties:
For the Appellant : Mr. Sabita Ranjan Pattnaik,
Additional Government Advocate
For the Respondents : M/s. Sukanta Kumar Biswal
and Ajay Kumar Baral,
Advocates
Ex.F.A. No.1 of 2017 Page 2 of 49
P R E S E N T:
HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE
MR. HARISH TANDON
AND
HONOURABLE JUSTICE
MR. MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
Date of Hearing : 25.08.2026 :: Date of Judgment : 03.09.2026
J UDGMENT
URAHARI RI AMAN
M S R
, J.—
T HE A PPEAL :
This Appeal under Order XLV, Rule 16 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 is directed against Order dated
11.08.2017 passed by a learned Single Judge in the
1
Execution Petition No.2 of 2015 on the ground of non-
rd
consideration of show-cause reply dated 23 June,
rd
2015, reply dated 23 September, 2015 to the rejoinder
of the Judgment Debtor (JDr) and reply of the JDr dated
th
9 February, 2016 to the objection filed by the Decree
Holder (DHr).
1.1. The JDr is the opposite party No.1 in O.J.C. No.11342 of
2000 before this Court and the petitioner in S.L.P.(C)
No.32998 of 2009 before the Supreme Court of India.
1
The execution petition relates to execution of the Order dated 21.05.2009
passed in O.J.C. No.11342 of 2000 as modified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India vide Order dated 09.01.2013 passed in S.L.P.(C) No.32998 of 2013.
Ex.F.A. No.1 of 2017 Page 3 of 49
The DHrs are the petitioners in OJC No.11342 of 2000
and the respondent Nos.1 to 3 in SLP(C) No.32998 of
2009.
T HE FACTS :
2. The factual matrix as adumbrated by the appellant-
Government of Odisha (for short, ―JDr‖), culled out from
the record and unfurled in the Judgment dated
2
21.05.2009 of this Court reveals that the Bhubaneswar
Development Authority had prepared Town Planning
Scheme No.2 for Nayapalli (North), Bhubaneswar in
exercise of power conferred under Chapter VI of the
Odisha Development Authorities Act, 1982. The Scheme
made provision for adequate road network,
infrastructural facilities, drainage channel, and
construction of embankment road on either side of
drainage channel. The Scheme provided that the owner
of each original plot shall primarily be liable to make
proportionate contribution in the form of land. The
Scheme further provided that each land owner who owns
land to the extent of Ac.1.00 was required to contribute
12% of his total land and persons having more than
Ac.1.00 land were required to contribute 15% of the
original land held by them for execution of the Scheme.
Pursuant to the same, the respondents (for convenience,
2
See, Biranchi Narayan Das and Others Vrs. State of Odisha and Others, 2009
SCC OnLine Ori 223 = 108 (2009) CLT 397.
Ex.F.A. No.1 of 2017 Page 4 of 49
―DHr‖) were compelled to transfer an area of Ac.1.837
decimals. They donated land, kisam of which is
classified as Sarad-II admeasuring area Ac.1.837
decimals in Mouza: Nayapalli (now Jayadev Vihar in
Bhubaneswar) as required for the Scheme of the
Bhubaneswar Development Authority (BDA) in favour of
Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation for its future
maintenance in connection with the approval of their
layout plan measuring Ac.9.441 decimals under Section
16 of the Odisha Development Authorities Act, 1982.
Subsequently said the Town Planning Scheme was
withdrawn/abandoned, which prompted the DHr to
claim for restoration of the land.
2.1. The DHr filed writ petition registered as O.J.C. No.11342
of 2000 with the following prayer(s):
“The petitioners therefore humbly pray that this Hon‟ble
Court graciously pleased to admit this writ petition, to
issue a rule NISI calling upon the opposite parties to Show
Cause as to why the petitioners shall not be re-
transferred/re-conveyed Ac.1.837 dec. of land belonging
to them covered under Plot No.344, 352 and 353 situated
in Mouza: Nayapalli (North) Jayadev Vihar which were
taken for implementation of the Scheme No.II in Nayapalli
(North) after abandonment of the Scheme and/or in
alternative to allot equivalent extent of land in exchange
at a prime location of Bhubaneswar with potential value,
within a time limit to be prescribed by this Hon‟ble Court.
If the opposite parties fail to show cause or show
insufficient cause to make the said rule absolute by
Ex.F.A. No.1 of 2017 Page 5 of 49
issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ/Writs, direction/directions, order/orders as this
Hon‟ble Court deems just and proper.
And/or to pass such order/orders as this Hon‟ble Court
deems just equitable and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case for giving complete relief to the
petitioners.”
2.2. Disposing of said case, this Court vide Judgment dated
3
21.05.2009 , directed as follows:
It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioners
“8.
contributed the land as required under the Scheme
and thereafter they were compelled to give excess
land failing which the opposite party No.2 was not
ready to pass the layout plan submitted by them. It
is the common law that nobody can be compelled to
give his land and deprived of his property. The
Government could not have compelled the petitioners
to part with their land under the threat that failing to
part with the land, their layout plan would not be
passed. Moreso when under the scheme
prescribed, the land which was to be gifted by
the petitioners under the compelling
circumstances was only Ac.1.416 decimals at
the rate of 15% of the total land, but they were
compelled to contribute Ac.2.861 dec. which
was beyond the scheme and by this way, they
had to contribute ultimately Ac.1.837 decs in
excess of the requirement of the Scheme under
the threat that in case they failed to give the
same, their layout plan would not be
3
See, Biranchi Narayan Das and Others Vrs. State of Odisha and Others, 2009
SCC OnLine Ori 223 = 108 (2009) CLT 397.
Ex.F.A. No.1 of 2017 Page 6 of 49
sanctioned. It is necessary to mention here that if
the layout plan submitted by the petitioners would
not have been passed, they could not have raised
Therefore, the so-called gift of
any construction.
land was not by free will but under threat .
9. In case of Chairman, Indore Vikas Pradhikaran Vrs.
M/s. Pure Industrial Cock & Chem. Ltd and others,
AIR 2007 Supreme Court 2458, the Hon‟ble Supreme
Court has held that the right of properties is not only
a constitutional right but is a human right. The
relevant paragraphs of the observation is quoted as
under:
„54. The right of property is now considered to be
not only a constitutional right but also a human
right.
55. The Declaration of Human Rights (1789)
enunciates under Article 17
„since the right to property is inviolable and
sacred, no-one may be deprived thereof, unless
public necessity, legally ascertained, obviously
requires it and just and prior indemnity has
th
been paid. Further under Article 217(IIII) of 10
December, 1948 adopted in the General
Assembly Resolution it is stated that:
(i) Everyone has the right to own property
alone as well as in association with
others
(ii) No-one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his
property.‟
Ex.F.A. No.1 of 2017 Page 7 of 49
56. Earlier human rights were existed to the claim
of individual rights to health, right to livelihood,
right to shelter and employment etc. but now
human rights have started gaining a multifacet
approach. Now property rights are also
incorporated within the definition of human
rights. Even claim of adverse possession has to
be read in consonance with human rights.
57. As President John Adams (1797-1801) put it,:
„property is surely a right of mankind as real
as liberty. „Adding. „the moment the idea is
admitted into society that property is not as
sacred as the laws of God, and that there is
not a force of law and public justice to protect
it, anarchy and tyranny commence.‟
58. Property, while ceasing to be a fundamental
right would, however, be given express
recognition as a legal right, provisions being
made that no person shall be deprived of his
property save in accordance with law.‟
10. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case,
we allow this writ petition and direct the opposite
party No.1 to allot to the petitioner equivalent extent
of land (Ac.1.837 dec.) in exchange having the
similar potential value which they have counted
within a period of three months from the date of
production of a copy of this order and the other
opposite parties are directed to execute the order to
be passed by opposite party No.1 in compliance of
this order.”
Ex.F.A. No.1 of 2017 Page 8 of 49
2.3. Aggrieved thereby, the Government of Odisha carried the
matter to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by way of
preferring Special Leave Petition, being SLP(C) No.32998
of 2009, which got disposed of with the following Order
dated 09.01.2013:
“Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner State,
respondents and perused the relevant material.
We do not find any valid and legal ground for
interference. The special leave petition is dismissed.
However, the petitioner is granted three months‟ time to
comply with the order of the High Court.
In case if the State finds no suitable land, as
suggested by the High Court, they are permitted to
pay the market value prevailing as on date to the
parties concerned. ”
2.4.
Since said order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
remained non-compliant, a Contempt Petition (Civil)
No.202 of 2013 was filed by the DHr, wherein during
pendency of said contempt, the said Hon’ble Court
passed following Order on 11.03.2014:
“After hearing and with the consent of the both parties,
we pass the following order:
In order to ascertain the market value prevailing as on
date of the property viz:
Mouza: Bhubaneswar Town,
Unit No.16 Jayadev Vihar,
Tahasil: Bhubaneswar, Tahasil No.240,
Ex.F.A. No.1 of 2017 Page 9 of 49
Thana: New Capital, District: Puri,
Thana No.33,
Khata No.353
Name of the Owner: Laxminarayan Das, Satyanarayan
Das and Biranchi Narayan Das, S/o Balamuknda Das,
Caste: Karan, Resident of Nayapalli,
Kisam: Stitiban, Plot No.353, Kisam: Sarad-II,
Area: Ac.6.676 decimals.
We appoint, Mr. R.K. Patra, former Chief Justice of Sikkim
High Court sanctioned at Cuttack as Arbitrator. We
request the Hon‟ble Judge to determine the “market value
prevailing as on date” as observed in our order dated
09.01.2013 preferably within a period of three months
from today. Parties are directed to appear before him at
11.00 a.m. on 24th March, 2014. Both parties are
permitted to place oral and documentary evidence as well
as Government records to substantiate their respective
claim.
The Arbitrator is permitted to fix his remuneration payable
by both parties in equal proportion.
List the matter after the receipt of the report.”
2.5. Accordingly, the learned Arbitrator submitted Report
dated 09.06.2014, relevant portion of which reads thus:
“10. The main bone of contention between the parties is
whether I am required to determine the „market
value prevailing as on date‟ (09.01.2013) in respect
of plot No. 353 measuring Ac.6.676 decimals or the
market value of Ac. 1.837 decimals only out of plot
No.353. 1 have no doubt in my mind that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court by order dated 11.03.2014 required
me to determine the market value of plot No.353
Ex.F.A. No.1 of 2017 Page 10 of 49
measuring Äc.6.676 decimals. The order of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court is clear and explicit. It is
stated in the order that:
„in order to ascertain the market value prevailing as
on date of the property, viz.: Mouza-Bhubaneswar
Town Unit No. 16 Jayadev Vihar, Tahasil-
Bhubaneswar, Tahasil No.240, Thana: New Capital,
District: Puri, Thana No.33, Khata No. 353, Name of
the Owner: Laxminarayan Das, Satyanarayan Das
and Biranchi Narayan Das, S/o Balamukunda Das,
Caste: Karana, Resident of: Nayapalli; Kisam:
Stitiban, Plot No.353, Kissam: Sarad-II, Area:
Ac.6.676 decimals.‟
From the above, it is clear that I was appointed as
Arbitrator to determine the market value of plot
No.353 measuring Ac.6.676 decimals. I do not find
any merit in the contention of the G.A. Department
that their Lordships required me to determine the
market value of an area Ac.1.837 decimals of plot
No. 353.
10.1. Basing on the assumption that the Hon‟ble Supreme
Court asked me to determine the market value of
land measuring Ac.1.837 decimals only, it was
contended on behalf of the Department that the said
area is now road and drain for which no valuation
exists and, therefore, the government allotted equal
extent of land measuring Ac.1.837 decimals in
Mouza Sampur in favour of the applicants by
government order dated 24.07.2013. According to
the Government, since the scheduled land was
recorded as Sarad-II at the time of making the gift
and no valuation of agricultural land with Sarad-II
classification is available in Mouza Jayadev Vihar,
Ex.F.A. No.1 of 2017 Page 11 of 49
they rely on the valuation of the Sarad-III land in
„surrounding‟ villages like Bharatpur whose Bench
Mark Valuation is Rs.40,00,000/- (forty lakhs) per
acre, and, therefore, the market value of the land
measuring Ac.1.837 decimals comeş to
Rs,80,82,800/- only.
*
10.3. The specific and categorical case of the applicants is
that there was no drain over plot No.353 prior to
1992. Subsequently, they constructed the existing
drain as per the instructions dated 29.06.1991 of
the Bhubaneswar Development Authority. The cost
of construction of drain, the bridge over it and the
embankment roads was incurred by the applicants
and they have submitted their claim before the
Valuation Officer.
Sri S.K. Raysardar, who was examined on behalf of
the G.A. Department, had filed counter affidavit
(Ext.21) in the writ petition (OJC No. 11342 of 2000)
in the Hon‟ble High Court. In paragraph 6 of the said
counter affidavit he has stated as under:
„That as regards paragraphs 9 to 14 of the writ
petitions, it is humbly submitted that as there were
no road, drainage and other infrastructural facilities
into the lands of the petitioners and others,
Bhubaneswar Development Authority formulated a
scheme namely Town Planning Scheme-II for
Nayapalli (North) for the inhabitants of the area.
Taking into consideration the difficulties faced by the
inhabitants the said scheme was formulated in
public interest and on the gifted lands of the
inhabitants road and drainage facilities have been
Ex.F.A. No.1 of 2017 Page 12 of 49
made by the BDA for the convenience of the
inhabitants of the area. ...‟
10.4 In the Survey and Settlement map of Mouza Jayadev
Vihar and ROR No.353 made and published in the
year 1992 corresponding to Sabik Plots No.867 and
868 of 1961-62 ROR there is no mention of existence
of any drain over plot No.353. Sri S.K. Raysardar,
witness of the G.A. Department admitted that in the
Record of Rights existence of road or drain is
generally indicated. Therefore, I am of the view that
non-mention of existence of drain over plot No.353
establishes that there was no drain on plot No.353
as per the ROR of 1992. Ext. 18 is the Khatian No.
197 of Mouza Daruthenga, P.S. Chandaka,
Bhubaneswar. It would clearly show that wherever
drain exists there is mention of drain (Pani Nala)
against respective plots.
10.5. It is relevant to mention here that in obedience to the
direction of the Orissa High Court in another writ
petition bearing OJC No. 1141 of 1996, the Secretary
to the Govt., Housing and Urban Development
Department took up for consideration vide ext.17
with regard to finalization of drainage alignment of
drain no.4 of Bhubaneswar Master Drainage Plan
within Jayadev Vihar between Ekamra Kanan Lake
and N.H. No.5. The Secretary noticed that this was
in respect of ten Master Drains of Bhubaneswar
including the portion of Drainage Alignment No.4. On
consideration of relevant materials produced before
him, the Secretary ordered that the proposed drain
(Drain no.4) should be constructed from Ekamra
Kanan Lake to R.D. 2200 meters as per the
suggestions made by him. This would indicate that
Ex.F.A. No.1 of 2017 Page 13 of 49
the question of drainage and alignment came up
only after 1992, i.e., after the applicants constructed
the existing drain as per the instruction dated
29.06.1991.
One Sri Gunduchi Rout was examined as witness
No.2 for the applicants. He had purchased Ac.0.51
decimals of land out of plot No.353 from the
applicants in the year 1988. He stated that at the
time of purchase, no „Nala‟ was in existence over
plot No.353. He was subjected to cross-examination,
but nothing substantial was brought out against
him. The satellite maps even if it is accepted that it
shows existence of drain, it is apparently taken after
construction of drain in 1992 by the applicants.
*
11.5. During my spot inspection I noticed that on the
scheduled plot No.353 and near and around it, a lot
of residential houses, multistoried apartments,
shops and other commercial establishments have
come up and are in existence. Sri S.K. Raysardar in
the counter affidavit (Ext.21) filed by him in the
Hon‟ble High Court at first sub-para of para-3 has
admitted as follows:
„... After getting facilities like road and drainage
channel arising out of the scheme, a multi storied
building namely Bishnupriya apartment, has been
erected over the land belonging to the petitioners
which is adjacent to the lands gifted by the
petitioners. The valuation of the land have also gone
up owing to the road and drainage facilities created
due to implementation of the Town Planning
Scheme.‟
Ex.F.A. No.1 of 2017 Page 14 of 49
Witness No.3 examined on behalf of the applicants is
one Sri Sajan Poddar a Real Estate Developer. He
has stated that he has been in the business of Real
Estate in Bhubaneswar since last 25 years. As per
his evidence he had constructed the Bhubaneswar
Development Office building, Kalinga Stadium at
Bhubaneswar on behalf of IDCO and other
government and private buildings. At present he is
doing a market building of Bhubaneswar Municipal
Corporation. He stated that if he constructs a
building on one acre of land of plot no.353 at
Jayadev Vihar, he would offer Rs.24.00 per acre to
the land owner. His offer for payment of
consideration to the land owner may be an
exaggerated one.
11.6 The Bench Mark Valuation made by the Government
is an indicator of the market value of the land. Rule
40 of the Orissa Stamp Rules lays down that the
market value guidelines prepared under Chapter-I
shall be issued as soon as they are prepared and
shall thereafter be revised biennially from the 1st of
April. That means, the bench mark valuation is liable
to be increased further.
The petition dated 22.03.2014 of the G.A.
Department praying to determine the valuation of the
scheduled land having classification of „Sarad‟ with
reference to the valuation of the „Sarad‟ land
available in the neighbouring Mouza Bharatpur is
rejected in view of what has been stated above.
11.7 Keeping all the aspects in view and by giving a
reasonable concession, I assess and determine the
market value of scheduled plot No.353 measuring
Ac.6.676 decimals as on 09.01.2013 at Rs.14.00
Ex.F.A. No.1 of 2017 Page 15 of 49
crore (rupees fourteen crore) per acre and not less
than that.”
2.6. Against said Report of the learned Arbitrator, State of
Odisha raised objection by filing affidavit dated
29.08.2014. Having said Report and Objection, the
contempt petition got disposed of by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India vide Order dated 28.01.2015
with the following observations:
“Having heard learned counsel for the rival parties for a
considerable length of time, on different dates of hearing,
we are of the view, that it is not possible to hold the
respondent guilty of deliberate and wilful disobedience of
any Court order. We accordingly, drop contempt
proceedings initiated against the respondent, and
discharge the notice issued to the respondent on
02.07.2013.
Despite the observations recorded hereinabove, it
shall be open to the respondents (in the main
petition), to execute the order passed in their
favour, in accordance with law.
The contempt petition is disposed of in the above terms. ‖
2.7. The DHr having initiated proceeding for execution, the
learned Single Judge disposed of ExP No.2 of 2015 by
Order dated 11.08.2017, which is as follows:
“Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
counsel for the State.
This execution petition has been filed for execution of the
order dated 21.5.2009 passed in OJC No.11342 of 2000,
Ex.F.A. No.1 of 2017 Page 16 of 49
as modified by order of the Hon‟ble Apex Court dated
09.01.2013, in SLP (Civil) No.32998 of 2013.
The petitioners had approached this Court in OJC
No.11342 of 2000, praying for a direction to the opposite
parties to re-transfer and re-convey the land bearing Plot
Nos.352, 353 and 344, situated in Mouza- Nayapalli
(North) now Jayadev Vihar, which they were compelled to
contribute for implementation of Scheme No.II in Nayapalli
(North) after abandonment of the said Scheme or in the
alternative to allot equivalent extent of land.
This Court by judgment dated 21.05.2009 disposed of the
OJC No.11342 of 2000 allowing the writ petition and
directing the present opposite party to allot to the
petitioners equivalent extent of land measuring Ac.1.837
dec. in exchange, having similar potential value within
three months.
Being aggrieved by the judgment of this Court dated
21.05.2009, passed in OJC No.11342 of 2000, the State
of Odisha moved the Hon‟ble Apex Court in SLP (Civil)
No.32998 of 2009. The Hon‟ble Court vide order dated
09.01.2013, while declining to interfere in the matter,
granted three months time to the State to comply with the
order/judgment of this Court in OJC No.11342 of 2000,
with the observation that if the State finds no suitable
land, as suggested by the High Court, they are permitted
to pay the market value prevailing as on the date to the
parties concerned.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
subsequently as the State Government did not comply
with the direction of the Hon‟ble Apex Court, the
petitioners filed a Contempt Petition (C) No.202 of 2013 in
SLP (C) No.32998 of 2009. The Hon‟ble Apex Court vide
Ex.F.A. No.1 of 2017 Page 17 of 49
order dated 11.03.2014 appointed Late Mr. Justice R.K.
Patra, former Chief Justice of Sikkim High Court as the
Arbitrator, to determine the market value of the petitioners
Learned Arbitrator vide his report
land in question.
dated 09.06.2014 determined the market value of
the petitioners land bearing Plot No.353 measuring
Ac.6.676 decimals at Rs.14.00 crore per acre, as on
the date of order of the Hon’ble Apex Court i.e.
09.01.2013 .
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners are entitled to the market value for their land,
as has been determined by the learned Arbitrator or in the
alternate, they may be given land with equivalent
potential value.
Learned Additional Government Advocate for the State
submits that the valuation arrived at by the learned
Arbitrator has never been acted upon or accepted by the
State. It is submitted that the benchmark valuation
of the petitioners’ land bearing Plot No.353, is Rs.7
crore per acre, as was prevalent on 09.01.2013,
which is a just, fair and proper method to
determine the valuation of the land in question. The
State is ready and willing to deposit the value of
the petitioners’ land measuring Ac.1.837 decimals
in Mouza-Jayadev Vihar at the said rate of Rs.7
crore per acre. It is submitted that pursuant to the
interim order of this Court, State has already deposited
amount of Rs.10 crore in the Registry of this Court
pursuant to the interim order of this Court dated
21.03.2016 passed in CMP No.437 of 2016, which has
been kept in fixed deposit.
Considering the submissions made, this Court is of the
view that the bench mark valuation of the land at
Ex.F.A. No.1 of 2017 Page 18 of 49
Jayadev Vihar in Bhubaneswar, fixed under the Odisha
Stamp (Amendment) Rules, 2001, appears to be the most
fair and proper method of determining the market value of
the petitioners land in question. Accordingly, while
accepting the market value of the petitioners land as Rs.7
crore per acre, the State is directed to deposit the balance
amount in the Registry of this Court within six weeks
hence.
On deposit of the balance amount, the Registry is directed
to disburse the amount of Rs.10 crore, which has been
kept in fixed deposit along with accrued interest thereon
and the balance amount in favour of the petitioners on
proper identification.
Execution petition is accordingly disposed of.
Issue urgent certified copy as per rules. Free copy of this
order be handed over to the learned counsel for the State
for compliance.”
2.8. Assailing said Order of the learned Single Judge, the JDr
filed this appeal under Order XLV, Rule 16 of the Code of
Civil Procedure. The DHr filed objection affidavit on
20.11.2017 in said appeal. On the other hand, feeling
aggrieved by non-payment of full amount, the DHr
approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of filing
Special Leave Petition, which was registered as S.L.P.(C)
No.3862 of 2018 and later registered as Civil Appeal
No.4769 of 2025.
2.9. When the fact of pendency of appeal filed at the behest
of State Government against the Judgment/Order dated
Ex.F.A. No.1 of 2017 Page 19 of 49
11.08.2017 in Execution Petition No.2 of 2015 is
brought to the notice of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
4
India, said Civil Appeal got disposed of on 03.04.2025
with the following observations:
“1. Leave granted.
2. The land of the appellants to the extent of 1.837
acres in Plot No.353 in Mouza: Nayapalli (North)
(now Jaydev Vihar) was directed to be transferred to
the State for implementation of the Town Planning
Scheme-II, Nayapalli-North II. Alleging that no
compensation was paid to them, the appellants filed
a writ petition before the High Court of Orissa,
seeking a direction to re-transfer and re-convey the
land bearing Plot Nos.352, 353, and 344. The High
Court, vide an order dated 21.05.2009, allowed the
writ petition to the extent that the State of Orissa
was directed to allot equivalent land in exchange,
having similar potential value, within three months.
The said judgment attained finality, as SLP(C)
No.32998/2009 moved by the State was dismissed
by this Court on 09.01.2013.
3. Since the State did not comply with the above-stated
direction, contempt proceedings were filed before
this Court, in which Justice R.K. Patra, a former
Chief Justice of the Sikkim High Court, was
appointed on 11.03.2014 to determine the market
value of the land in question. Justice Patra, in his
capacity as an Arbitrator or a neutral umpire,
determined the market value of the appellants' land
to be at Rs.14 crores per acre.
4
Biranchi Narayan Das and Others Vrs. State of Odisha, Civil Appeal No.4769 of
2025 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.3862 of 2018).
Ex.F.A. No.1 of 2017 Page 20 of 49
4. It appears from the record that the appellants filed
execution proceedings before the High Court for the
recovery of the amount as determined by Justice
Patra. In those proceedings, the High Court has
passed the impugned order, holding that the most
fair and proper method of determining the market
value of the appellants‟ land would be as per the
Orissa Stamp (Amendment) Rules, 2001. The High
Court, accordingly, accepted the market value as
Rs.7 crores per acre. The State was, consequently,
directed to deposit the balance amount, going by the
rate of Rs.7 crores per acre, with the Registry of the
High Court. While the appellants being
aggrieved by the non-payment of the full
amount, as was assessed by Justice Patra, are
before us, the State aggrieved by the re-
determination of the market value of the land
by the Single Judge of the High Court, has gone
in an Intra-Court Appeal bearing Execution
First Appeal No.1/2017 before the High Court,
which is still pending consideration .
5. We have heard learned senior counsel for the
appellants and learned Advocate General for the
State.
6. In our considered opinion and as the facts
noticed above would speak for themselves, the
issue regarding fair and just market value of
the land is pending consideration before the
Division Bench of the High Court in the above
mentioned proceedings. While the appellants
will be at liberty to contend that the High
Court, in execution cannot go behind the
determination of price by Justice Patra, the
Ex.F.A. No.1 of 2017 Page 21 of 49
State will be equally entitled to contend that
the report/order/determination by Justice Patra
suffers from some legal flaws. Such like issues
being sub-judice before the Division Bench, it is not
expedient or desirable for us to express any opinion
at this stage.
7. Suffice it would be to protect the interest of the
appellants by directing the State of Orissa to deposit
the balance amount, as per the rate determined by
Justice Patra, with the Registry of the High Court
during the pendency of the First Appeal. The said
amount along with any additional amount earlier
deposited shall be kept by the High Court in the form
of Fixed Deposit Receipt(s) of a Nationalized Bank
fetching the maximum rate of interest.
8. The appellants shall be at liberty to move an
application before the High Court, in the pending
Intra-Court Appeal, for the release of some part of
the deposited amount in their favour immediately,
subject to such terms and conditions as may be
imposed by the High Court.
9. We also request the High Court to accord expeditious
hearing to the Intra-Court Appeal, i.e., Execution
First Appeal No.1/2017, pending before it.
10. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
11. All pending interlocutory applications, as a
consequence, also stand disposed of.”
H EARING :
3. In view of Order dated 03.04.2025 of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.4769 of 2025
Ex.F.A. No.1 of 2017 Page 22 of 49
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.3862 of 2018), this matter is
taken up for final hearing on the consent of counsel for
the contesting parties.
3.1. Heard Sri Sabita Ranjan Pattnaik, learned Additional
Government Advocate for the appellant (JDr) and Sri
Sukanta Kumar Biswal, learned Advocate for the
respondents (DHr).
3.2. After conclusion of the hearing, the matter is reserved
for preparation and delivery of Judgment/Order.
R IVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ARGUMENTS :
4.
Sri Sabita Ranjan Pattnaik, learned Additional
Government Advocate for the JDr submitted that during
pendency of Contempt Petition (Civil) No.202 of 2013,
complete compliance with this Court’s Order dated
21.05.2009 in O.J.C. No. 11342 of 2000, as modified by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 09.01.2013 in
SLP(C) No. 32998 of 2013, has been effected by offering
equivalent land of equal potential value measuring
Ac.1.837 decimals in Sampur Mouza, i.e., part Plot
No.753 under Khata No.245. However, the DHr disputed
the value of the said land with that of the land at Mouza:
Jayadev Vihar, which triggered appointment of learned
Arbitrator by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India to
determine market value prevailing as on 09.01.2013.
Ex.F.A. No.1 of 2017 Page 23 of 49
4.1. The original land in Mouza: Jayadev Vihar donated/
gifted to the Bhubaneswar Municipality (1988–92)
comprised low-lying Sarad-II kisam paddy land covered
by a natural drain, which got later developed into a road
and drain. On reference to the District Sub-Registrar,
Khordha at Bhubaneswar, it could be ascertained that
there was no official benchmark valuation. Applying
5
sub-clause (iii) of clause (a) of Appendix-II as inserted
by virtue of the Odisha Stamp (Amendment) Rules,
2001, in terms of Rule 41 of the Odisha Stamp Rules,
1952, the land in neighbouring/boundary Village:
Bharatpur valued at Rs.40 lakhs per acre. In absence of
vacant Government land in Bharatpur, suitable land
was proposed to be allotted situated in Mouza: Sampur
after consultation with the Accountant General, G and
SSA, Odisha. Said Authority confirmed via letter No.685,
dated 06.12.2013 that the proposed allotment by
Government at Mouza: Sampur is of higher value with
higher potential. Consequently, the JDr contends that
all directions of the Court stand fully satisfied, leaving
no scope for further execution.
4.2. Conversely, the DHr refused the physical land allotment
and filed Execution Petition No.2 of 2015 claiming
money to be paid at market valuation. The DHr claimed
Rs.25,71,80,000/- as principal value. This apart, claims
5
Clause (a)(iii) of Appendix-II— Principles for determination of market value—
specifies that
“value of adjacent land or lands in the vicinity;”
Ex.F.A. No.1 of 2017 Page 24 of 49
towards interest @12% from 10.01.2013 till 06.02.2015
amounting to Rs.6,42,95,000/- and litigation costs of
Rs.35 crore were made.
4.3. By order dated 10.02.2016, the learned Registrar of this
Court directed the JDr to deposit Rs.25,71,80,000/- as
against the claims made by DHr based on the
Arbitrator’s Report. The JDr challenged the order under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India in C.M.P. No.438
of 2016, which was admitted on 29.04.2016 and stay of
proceedings in Execution Case No.2 of 2015 was
granted. The JDr was also directed to deposit Rs.10
crore as security. Pending the C.M.P., due to ongoing
disputes over market value and potential, the JDr got
approval of the Government to return the original land to
the DHr. Ultimately, by Order dated 21.12.2016, the
learned Single Judge disposed of C.M.P. No.438 of 2016,
holding that execution proceedings before the Registrar
(Judicial) were not tenable as execution lies exclusively
on the judicial side, and accordingly assigned the matter
to a Single Judge for disposal in accordance with law .
4.4. The learned Single Judge by Order dated 11.08.2017
disposed of the execution petition by fixing the market
value of the land at the rate of Rs.7 crore per acre with a
direction to the JDr to make deposit in the Registry of
this Court within the period stipulated therein. It was
also indicated that interest would also be payable to the
Ex.F.A. No.1 of 2017 Page 25 of 49
DHr. The said order of the learned Single Judge is
subject-matter of this present appeal.
4.5. The learned Additional Government Advocate submitted
that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the
rd
show cause reply dated 23 June, 2015 along with
rd th
further submission dated 23 September, 2015 and 27
January, 2016 of the JDr. Notwithstanding the fact that
full and final compliance of this Court’s Order dated
25.05.2009 as modified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India vide Order dated 09.01.2013 in SLP (C) No.32998
of 2009 was made by allotting equivalent extent of land
having equal potential value by the Government of
Odisha in General Administration and Public Grievance
Department after due examination and endorsement of
the same by the Accountant General, Odisha, the DHr
initiated execution case. Such a recourse is
misconceived and untenable.
4.6. It is vehemently contended by the learned Additional
Government Advocate with reference to Ground No.F
that it was consistent stand of the Government that the
benchmark valuation of homestead land of Jayadev
Vihar Mouza is not safe guide to determine the valuation
of the subject-land inasmuch as such land was low
laying paddy land with major natural drain running
across it at the time of gift made by the DHr during the
period 1988-92. He submitted that the rate fixed by the
Ex.F.A. No.1 of 2017 Page 26 of 49
learned Arbitrator vide Report dated 09.06.2014 could
not have been accepted. A valiant attempt is made by
the learned Additional Government Advocate to contend
that the valuation of the case land as determined by the
learned Arbitrator is erroneous as the entire land in
question was covered by drain and road, which could
not have been equated by the rest of the land bearing
Plot No.353 having homestead status. Strenuous
arguments are advanced to persuade this Court to
revisit the fact contended by the JDr that the gifted land
by the DHrs would never be put to residential use as the
same obstructs natural water source. Such an use as
homestead land would be contrary to what is envisaged
under Rule 12A(1)(d) of the Odisha Land Reforms
6
(General) Rules, 1965 .
5. Strongly opposing the contention of the JDr that the
benchmark valuation of the homestead land of Mouza:
Jayadev Vihar would not have been applied to the
present gifted land during the period 1988-92, it is
submitted by the learned counsel for the DHr that on
the date of orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
6
Rule 12A(1)(d) of the Odisha Land Reforms (General) Rules, 1965 as inserted by
Notification No.28165-Re-55/96 [S.R.O. No.776 of 1997], dated 29.11.1997
reads thus:
“While considering the application for conversion, the authorised officer shall
satisfy himself that the proposed conversion will not—
(i) obstruct natural water courses thereby causing water logging of
agricultural lands in the neighbourhood, or
(ii) obstruct water courses laid out for carrying water for irrigating agricultural
holdings in the neighbourhood.”
Ex.F.A. No.1 of 2017 Page 27 of 49
of India, the status of said land was road and drain, for
which no benchmark valuation existed. Therefore,
essentially it is urged that as the Report of the District
Sub-Registrar, Khordha revealed no benchmark
valuation with respect to Sarad-II kisam land in Mouza:
Jayadev Vihar, the principle of valuation as postulated
under sub-clause (iii) of Clause (a) to the Appendix-II in
terms of Rule 41 of the Odisha Stamp Rules, 1952,
would not be safe guide. Hence, it is fallacious on the
part of the learned Additional Government Advocate
seeking to impress upon this Court that the valuation of
similarly situated land in Mouza: Bharatapur stood at
Rs.40 lakhs per acre should have been applied for the
present case land.
5.1. The learned counsel for the DHr submitted that the
State Government (JDr) did not comply with the Order
th
dated 9 January, 2013 passed in SLP(C) No.32998 of
2009 (State of Odisha Vrs. Biranchi Narayan Das and
others arising out of judgment and order dated
21.05.2009 passed in OJC No.11342 of 2000 rendered by
this Court) and, therefore, a contempt petition No.202 of
2013 was filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India at the behest of the DHr. In pursuance of Order
dated 11.03.2014 passed therein, against the Report of
the learned Arbitrator dated 29.08.2014 submitted
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the
Ex.F.A. No.1 of 2017 Page 28 of 49
Additional Land Officer, General Administration
Department of the Government of Odisha filed
exhaustive objection in form of an additional affidavit to
the said report submitted by the learned Arbitrator in
Contempt Petition (Civil) No.202 of 2013 in Special Leave
Petition (C) No.32998 of 2009. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in Order dated 28.01.2015 disposed of
said petition dropping the contempt proceeding initiated
against the JDr, granting liberty to the DHr “to execute
in
the order passed in the FAO in accordance with law”
the main petition. Accordingly, the execution petition
being Ex.P. No.2 of 2015 came to be disposed of by this
Court on 11.08.2017.
5.2. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents-DHrs that the present appeal has been filed
indeed to protract the litigation despite the fact that the
learned Arbitrator’s Report and valuation determined by
him as submitted to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
cannot be questioned. In the Order dated 11.03.2014
passed in Contempt Petition (Civil) No.202 of 2013, it
has been allowed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
that
“Both the parties are permitted to place oral and
documentary evidence as well as Government records to
substantiate their respective claim” . The said Court while
dropping contempt proceeding, granted liberty to the
DHr to execute the order passed in their favour.
Ex.F.A. No.1 of 2017 Page 29 of 49
5.3. The Report was prepared by the learned Arbitrator after
examination status of the land as it was prevailing at the
relevant point of time and material witnesses/authorities
and field visit of the land in question. No Arbitrariness or
illegality can be imputed to the Order dated 11.08.2017
of the learned Single Judge. However, he submitted that
the learned Single Judge should not have varied with the
determination made by the learned Arbitrator. Having
not given proper reason to reduce the valuation of the
land to Rs.7 crores per acre, he fell into grave error of
record.
ISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
D :
6. Perused the record.
7. From the Order 03.04.2025 passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.4769 of 2025
(arising out of SLP(C) No.3862 of 2018), it is manifest
that the issue involved in the present matter is fair and
just market value of the land and the DHr is granted
liberty to raise contention that this Court cannot go
behind the determination of price by the learned
Arbitrator appointed by said Court. It is also transpired
therefrom that the Report/Order/Determination by the
learned Arbitrator suffers from legal flaws.
6.1. It is trite that a Court executing a decree cannot go
behind the decree between the parties or their
Ex.F.A. No.1 of 2017 Page 30 of 49
representatives; it must take a decree according to its
tenor and cannot entertain any objection that the decree
was incorrect in law or in facts. Until it is set aside by an
appropriate proceeding in appeal or revision, a decree
even if it is erroneous it is still binding between the
parties. Refer V asudev Dhanjibhai Modi Vrs. Rajabhai
Abdul Rehman and others, (1970) 1 SCC 670; Topanmal
Chhotamal Vrs. Kundomal Gangaram and others, AIR
1960 SC 388; Satyawati Vs. Rajinder Singh and another,
(2013) 9 SCC 491.
6.2. Perusal of the judgment dated 21.05.2009 rendered in
the case of Biranchi Narayan Das, OJC No.11342 of 2000
[ 2009 SCC OnLine Ori 223 = 108 (2009) CLT 397 ], it is
manifest that a clear direction to the JDrs was issued to
allot the DHrs equivalent extent of the land (Ac.1.837
decimal) in exchange of land having similar potential
value. However, on the petition for non-compliance of
such direction, while dropping the contempt proceeding
by Order dated 28.01.2015 in Contempt Petition (C)
No.202 of 2013 in SLP(C) No.32998 of 2009, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India granted liberty to the DHrs in
the main petition to execute the order passed in their
favour. It appears such a direction emanates from the
Report submitted by the learned Arbitrator with a
direction to determine the ―Market value prevailing as on
date‖ as observed in the Order dated 09.01.2013 of the
Ex.F.A. No.1 of 2017 Page 31 of 49
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Such fact is clearly
reflected in Order dated 11.03.2014 of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India.
6.3. The learned Single Judge in his Order dated 11.08.2017
having recorded that “the benchmark valuation of the
petitioner‟s land (DHr‟s land) bearing Plot No.353 is Rs.7
crores per acre, as was prevalent on 09.01.2013, which is
a just, fair and proper method to determine the valuation
of the land in question” , proceeded to state the admission
of the JDr that,
“the State is ready and willing to
deposit the value of the petitioner’s land measuring
Ac.1.837 decimals in Mouza: Jayadev Vihar at the
. Accordingly, the
said rate of Rs.7 crores per acre”
learned Single Judge held that “while accepting the
market value of the petitioner‟s land as Rs.7 crore per
acre, the State is directed to deposit the balance amount
in the Registry of this Court within six weeks hence”.
While holding so, the learned Single Judge has adopted
valuation of land at Jayadev Vihar in Bhubaneswar,
fixed under Rule 41 of the Odisha Stamp Rules, 1952, as
amended by the Odisha Stamp (Amendment) Rules,
2001.
6.4.
The learned Single Judge’s view can be countenanced by
the dicta of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the
State cannot approbate and reprobate. [See, State of
Punjab Vrs. Dhanjit Singh Sandhu, (2014) 15 SCC 144 ].
Ex.F.A. No.1 of 2017 Page 32 of 49
Once it accepted the valuation by admission before the
Court, and the executing Court having accepted such
statement of a party to the proceeding passed orders, the
same is not amenable to be challenged in appeal. No
plea is also taken that such was not the statement
before the executing Court.
6.5. In such view of the matter, on taking note of statement
of the counsel appearing for JDr that “the State is ready
and willing to deposit the value of the petitioner‟s land
measuring Ac.1.837 decimals in Mouza: Jayadev Vihar at
since the learned
the said rate of Rs.7 crores per acre”
Single Judge had directed to make deposit by taking into
account Rs.7 crore per acre as the valuation of land in
question, the instant appeal is devoid of merit.
8. Having thus found no merit in the appeal filed at the
behest of the State of Odisha, the discussion now takes
this Court to consider whether the learned Single Judge
could reduce the valuation as determined by the learned
Arbitrator, appointed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India.
7.1. Reading of paragraphs 1 and 6 of Order dated
03.04.2025 passed in the case of Biranchi Narayan Das
and others Vrs. State of Odisha , Civil Appeal No.4769 of
2025 (arising out of SLP(C) No.3862 of 2018) it is made
clear by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that this
Ex.F.A. No.1 of 2017 Page 33 of 49
Court is to consider the possible arguments of the JDr
against the valuation of the land measuring Ac.1.837
decimals in Plot No.353 in Mouza: Nayapalli (North) (now
Jayadev Vihar) at the rate of Rs.14 crores per acre as
determined by the learned Arbitrator is flawed vis-a-vis
contention of the DHr that the execution cannot go
behind the value so determined.
7.2. Scrutiny of pleading in the instant first appeal it would
reveal the JDr in order to question Order dated
11.08.2017 passed in ExP No.2 of 2015, has taken eight
grounds. Each of the grounds is discussed hereunder:
A. General comment is made that the order is illegal,
erroneous, contrary to law, against the weight of
evidence available on record and non-application of
mind.
B. It is alleged in Ground No.B that learned Single
Judge failed to consider Show Cause reply dated
23.06.2015, submissions dated 23.09.2015 and
27.01.2016 whereby stand of the JDr is made clear
that full and final compliance of Judgment dated
25.05.2009 [ Biranchi Narayan Das, OJC No.11342
of 2000 2009 SCC OnLine Ori 223 = 108 (2009) CLT
397
] as modified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India by Order dated 09.01.2013 in SLP(C)
No.32998 of 2009 by way of allotment of equivalent
Ex.F.A. No.1 of 2017 Page 34 of 49
extent of land of equal potential value by the
Government in General Administration and Public
Grievance Department.
This aspect does not fall for consideration by this
Court at this stage as the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India by a subsequent Order dated 11.03.2014
passed in Contempt Petition No.202 of 2013 in
SLP(C) No.32998 of 2009, appointing learned
Arbitrator, requested him “to determine the market
value prevailing as on date as observed in our Order
dated 09.01.2013 preferably within a period of three
months from today” and further directed the parties
th
March,
“to appear before him at 11.00 a.m. on 24
2014” permitting them “to place oral and
documentary evidence as well as Government
. Upon
records to substantiate their respective claim”
participation of both the parties, after submission
of Report dated 09.06.2014 before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India by the learned Arbitrator,
an Objection dated 29.08.2014 in shape of Affidavit
being sworn to by the Additional Land Officer,
General Administration Department of Government
of Odisha was filed by the JDr. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India “having heard learned
counsel for the rival parties for a considerable length
vide Order
of time, on different dates of hearing”
Ex.F.A. No.1 of 2017 Page 35 of 49
dated 28.01.2015 dropped the contempt
proceeding. Nonetheless, the said Hon’ble Court in
the said Order, in categorical terms stated thus:
“Despite observations recorded above, it shall be
open to the respondents (in the main petition), to
execute the order passed in their favour, in
accordance with law.”
In such view of the matter, the DHr is given
opportunity to get the order in his favour executed.
Hence, the ground No.B has no substance.
C.
In Ground No.C it is agitated that the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in Order dated 09.01.2013
has not granted liberty to the DHr not to accept the
allotment of suitable land of equivalent extent with
even higher potential value. Such ground is
fallacious and in view of subsequent orders passed
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the
contempt petition arising out of the same special
leave petition qua Order dated 09.01.2013, such a
stance is calculated to deny benefit accrued out of
the Report of the learned Arbitrator prepared by the
participation of the authorities of the State
Government (JDr) as well as the DHr). This ground
merits no consideration.
D. Ground Nos.D and E suggest that part of the land
i.e., Plot No.353 in Mouza: Jayadev Vihar being
Ex.F.A. No.1 of 2017 Page 36 of 49
homestead in character, the valuation attached
thereto could not be applied to the patch of subject-
land as the nature of land is covered by drain and
road. A plea of denial is set out by the JDr that the
DHr during 1988 to 1992 never gifted the low lying
paddy land classified as Sarada-II in Sabik Record-
of-Right, i.e., Old Record-of-Right of 1962 of Old
Village Nayapalli (now, Jayadev Vihar) situated at
far away from the road and the said land is now
road and drain against which no valuation is
7
available. On the contrary, this Court having
glance at Additional Affidavit/Objection dated
29.08.2014 filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India in contempt petition finds the following fact
being affirmed by the Additional Land Officer of the
General Administration Department:
“13. That it is respectfully submitted that the
Government in the General Administration
Department is ready and willing to return
the donated land measuring Ac.1.837
decimals to the contempt petitioners. The
Record-of-Right of the donated land still stands
recorded in the name of the contempt
petitioner, hence for resolution of the dispute
this Hon‟ble Court may allow the continuance
of the ownership of the donated land in favour
7
See, Additional Affidavit/Objection dated 29.08.2014 to the Report of the
learned Arbitrator filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
Ex.F.A. No.1 of 2017 Page 37 of 49
of the contempt petitioners so that there will be
no further claim by them.”
Minute reading of the Report of the learned
Arbitrator transpires that
“Under Secretary-cum-
Additional Land Officer, General Administration
Department appeared. A petition dated 22.03.2014
was filed on behalf of the General Administration
Department praying to determine the valuation of the
Scheduled Land having classification “Sarada” with
reference to the valuation of the “Sarad” Land
available in the neighbouring Mouza: Bharatpur” .
The Report further reveals that
“With the consent of
, the learned Arbitrator
both parties” “inspected the
Scheduled site on 20.04.2014. The applicant, Sri
Biranchi Narayan Das and his counsel were present
along with the Officers of the General Administration
Department” . Paragraph 3 of the Report also
manifests that the Officials of General
Administration Department were given opportunity
to cross-examine witnesses. Both the sides were
given adequate opportunity to examine and cross-
examine and produce documents. It does emanate
therefrom that Dr. Sandeep Tripathy, Chief
Executive, Odisha Space Application Centre
(ORSAC) was also examined and cross-examined. It
is also recorded as a matter of fact settled in the
earlier round of litigation, being Biranchi Narayan
Ex.F.A. No.1 of 2017 Page 38 of 49
Das, OJC No.11342 of 2000 2009 SCC OnLine Ori
223 = 108 (2009) CLT 397, that:
“The Government could not have compelled the
petitioners to part with their land under the threat
that failing to part with the land, their lay out plan
would not be passed. More so when under the
Scheme prescribed, the land which was to be gifted
by the petitioners under the compelling
circumstances was only Ac.1.416 decimals at the
rate of 15% of the total land, but they were
compelled to contribute Ac.2.861 decimals which
was beyond the Scheme and by this way, they had
to contribute ultimately Ac.1.837 decimals in excess
of the requirement of the Scheme under the threat
that in case they failed to give the same, their layout
plan would not be sanctioned. It is necessary to
mention here that if the layout plan submitted by the
petitioners would not have been passed, they could
not have raised any construction. Therefore, the so-
called gift of land was not by free will but under
threat.”
The learned Arbitrator clarified the position that:
“I have no doubt in my mind that the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court by Order dated 11.03.2014 required
me to determine the market value of plot No.353
measuring Ac.6.676 decimals. The Order of the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court is clear and explicit. ... From
the above, it is clear that I was appointed as
Arbitrator to determine the market value of Plot
No.353 measuring Ac.6.676 decimals. I do not find
any merit in the contention of General
Administration Department that their Lordships
Ex.F.A. No.1 of 2017 Page 39 of 49
required me to determine the market value of an
area Ac.1.837 decimals of Plot No.353.”
After having taken into consideration the maps
prepared by the ORSAC and other attending
surroundings of Plot No.353 of Jayadev Vihar
Mouza, the learned Arbitrator at paragraph 10.4 of
his report clearly came to following factual finding:
“In the Survey and Settlement map of Mouza
Jayadev Vihar and ROR No.353 made and
published in the year 1992 corresponding to Sabik
Plots No.867 and 868 of 1961-62 ROR there is no
mention of existence of any drain over plot
No.353. Sri S.K. Raysardar, witness of the
General Administration Department admitted
that in the Record of Rights existence of road
or drain is generally indicated. Therefore, I am of
the view that non-mention of existence of drain over
plot No.353 establishes that there was no drain on
plot No.353 as per the ROR of 1992. Ext. 18 is the
Khatian No. 197 of Mouza Daruthenga, P.S.
Chandaka, Bhubaneswar. It would clearly show
that wherever drain exists there is mention of drain
(Pani Nala) against respective plots.”
Upon examination of documentary evidence and
weighing oral statements, the learned Arbitrator
has come to clinching factual foundation that at
the relevant point of time the plot was not covered
by drain and road. Such factual position could not
successfully be impeached by the JDr.
Ex.F.A. No.1 of 2017 Page 40 of 49
E. In Ground No.E, the JDr has sought to re-agitate
that the status of the land as per maps published
by the Odisha Space Application Centre should
have been appreciated by the learned Single Judge.
However, this Court is not impressed with such a
stand of the JDr inasmuch as the learned
Arbitrator has threadbare discussed with respect to
such map and having taken into consideration the
Sabik (Old) Record-of-Right he came to conclude
that at the relevant point of time there was no drain
or road over the patch of land (Plot No.353). This
ground is also found to be without any substance.
F. Questioning the satisfaction of the learned Single
Judge that the benchmark valuation of homestead
(residential) land of Mouza: Jayadev Vihar stands
at Rs.7 crores as on 09.01.2013 is just and fair
method to determine the valuation of the land in
question, the JDr has taken the stand that:
“... valuation of the case land is to be determined as
per benchmark valuation of Sarad-II land in the
neighbouring village of Bharatpur, which stands at
Rs.40 lakhs per acre on the date of the orders of the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court. As such the learned
Additional Government Advocate had confined his
submissions regarding the claim advanced in the
Execution Petition basing upon the report of the
Hon‟ble Arbitrator. Thus such finding clearly
contradicts the written submissions in shape of
Ex.F.A. No.1 of 2017 Page 41 of 49
show cause reply and further submissions of this
Appellant, which incidentally was duly vetted by
him, wherein it was categorically indicated that the
valuation of the case gifted land is Rs.40 lakhs per
acre. In this connection it is most humbly submitted
that pursuant to passing of the impugned Order
dated 11.08.2017 a high level meeting presided over
by the Chief Secretary, Odisha and attended by the
Learned Advocate General, Odisha, and the
Principal Secretary, Law Department among others,
was held. It was found that the said findings of the
Hon‟ble Single Judge is in variance with the
consistent stand of the State as submitted above
and it was decided to place this fact before this
Hon‟ble Court for favour of reconsideration in the
interest of the State.”
This Court finds such ground cannot be supported
with. After contempt proceeding being dropped on
assurance made before the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India, it is not open for the Government to
convene high-level meeting to question the findings
of the learned Arbitrator. This apart, no material is
placed before the learned Single Judge by the JDr
to demolish the finding of fact that at the relevant
point of time the Record-of-Right or any other
contemporaneous document to depict that there
existed drain and road over the Plot No.353 of
Jayadev Vihar Mouza. Rather, it is revealed from
the record that Additional Documents were filed by
the DHr on 19.06.2017 by way of affidavit in Ex.P.
Ex.F.A. No.1 of 2017 Page 42 of 49
No.2 of 2015, which demonstrates, Office of the
District Sub-Registrar, Khordha at Bhubaneswar
on 27.10.2016 supplied information to the effect
that benchmark valuation of Mouza: Jayadev
Vihar, Plot No.353, kisam: Sarada-II would be
Rs.14,40,00,000/- per acre and Sub-Registrar,
Khandagiri, Bhubaneswar confirmed on
27.10.2016 that the benchmark valuation of plot
No.753, kisam: Bagayat, Mouza: Sampur would be
Rs.2,13,00,000/-. Such unimpeachable documents
being at hand, and having regard to benchmark
valuation with respect to Plot No.353, Jayadev
Vihar Mouza as informed by the competent
authority, it can safely be said on the basis of the
factual finding returned by the learned Arbitrator
that there was no drain and/or road running
through the plot No.353, the market value as
determined at Rs.14.00 crore (rupees fourteen core)
per acre as on 09.01.2013 does not suffer from any
infirmity or deficiency.
G. Ground No.G relates to non-consideration of
written submissions by the learned Single Judge
does not require any specific consideration in view
of the above discussions.
9. So far as sanctity of determination of valuation of
learned Arbitrator, being appointed by the Hon’ble
Ex.F.A. No.1 of 2017 Page 43 of 49
Supreme Court of India, it is submitted by the learned
counsel for the DHr that an Arbitrator appointed by the
Court functions as an extension of the Court and his
report once acted upon cannot be re-appreciated and/or
modified. The Supreme Court of India while dropping
contempt proceeding having directed such valuation to
be placed and the valuation being determined after
thorough examination/cross-examination of witnesses,
consideration of documents/material placed and spot
inspection, the same could not be challenged by the JDr
in execution proceeding. It is submitted by the learned
counsel for the DHr that “The judgment of the court has
become final. Under Article 141, it shall be binding on all
Courts. Under Article 142, it shall be enforceable
throughout the territory of India. Under Article 144 all
authori- ties, civil and judicial, in the territory of India
shall act in aid of this Court. The judicial verdict
pronounced by court in relation to a matter cannot be
challenged on the ground that it violates one's
8
. Stemming on the doctrine of
fundamental right.”
merger and law declared by the Supreme Court as
enunciated in Kunhayammed Vrs. State of Kerala, (2000)
6 SCC 359 , it is submitted that an Arbitrator appointed
by the Court functions as an extension of the Court and
his report once acted upon cannot be re-appreciated
and/or modified.
8
Triveniben Vrs. State of Gujurat, (1989) 1 SCC 678, pr. 26.
Ex.F.A. No.1 of 2017 Page 44 of 49
7.3. The arguments advanced by Sri Sabita Ranjan Pattnaik,
learned Additional Government Advocate that the
subject-land is covered by drain and road and cannot
acquire the status of homestead is incoherent,
inconsistent and abhorrent. This Court on perusal of
documents available on record finds a document titled
―Order Sheet‖ of Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar signed on
31.05.2010 relating to OLR Case No.7329 of 2009
enclosed with Affidavit filed on 19.06.2017 in Ex.P. No.2
of 2015., wherefrom it is discernible that an area of
Ac.0.578 decimals of land from Plot No.353, Khata
No.353 of Jayadev Vihar Mouza standing recorded in the
names of DHr has been converted for use as
―homestead‖. This fact remained uncontroverted by JDr.
Be that as it may, as the learned Additional Government
Advocate failed to justify the assertion of the
Government of Odisha that the land was covered by
drain and road would not fetch the market value of
Rs.14 crores per acre, as determined by the learned
Arbitrator, by adducing any plausible material to
demonstrate that the status of entire land of Plot No.353
can be divided into two parts, viz., one part is Sarada-II
kisam and the rest part, which is subject-matter of
dispute, is not Sarada-II kisam. This Court takes
cognizance of the finding of fact returned by the learned
Arbitrator that drain and road were not existing over the
land in question at the relevant point of time and
Ex.F.A. No.1 of 2017 Page 45 of 49
therefore, there is no scope left for this Court than to
hold that the learned Single Judge could not have
meddled with the valuation as determined by him.
7.4. This observation is fortified in view of Order dated
28.01.2015 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in Contempt Petition (Civil) No.202 of 2013 in
SLP(C) No.32998 of 2009, wherein it has been
unambiguously spelt out that it is open for the
respondent in the main petition, i.e., SLP(C) No.32998 of
2009 (DHr) ―to execute the order passed in their favour‖.
Notwithstanding the fact that the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in Order dated 03.04.2025 passed in the
case of Biranchi Narayan Das and others Vs. State of
Odisha , Civil Appeal No.4769 of 2025 (arising out of
SLP(C) No.3862 of 2018) granted scope to the JDr to
demonstrate that the Report submitted by the learned
Arbitrator is faulted with, nothing tangible could be
demonstrated by the learned Additional Government
Advocate for the JDr. In this regard the discussions
made in foregoing paragraph would suffice. On the
contrary, in the Objection Affidavit filed on 20.11.2017
in the present appeal, the DHr has made his stand clear
that having received the Report of the learned Arbitrator,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dropped the
contempt proceeding against JDr and because the
Government of Odisha assured before the executing
Ex.F.A. No.1 of 2017 Page 46 of 49
Court that they are ready and willing to deposit the
value of land calculated at Rs.7 crores per acre, the
learned Single Judge jumped to abrupt conclusion that
the State of Odisha-JDr would deposit the balance
amount calculated with valuation at Rs.7 crores.
7.5. There is no cavil for the proposition that even if two
views are possible there is no scope for the Court to
reappraise the evidence and to take different view other
than that was taken by the learned Arbitrator. The
learned Single Judge in his Order dated 11.08.2017
recorded the submission of the learned Additional
Government Advocate that “the benchmark valuation of
the petitioners‟ (DHr) land bearing Plot No.353 is Rs.7
crore per acre, as was prevalent on 09.01.2013, which is
a just, fair and proper method to determine the valuation
. There is no iota of evidence
of the land in question”
found place in the record to suggest that the benchmark
valuation as on 09.01.2013 was Rs.7 crores. Refuting
such statement regarding benchmark valuation, this
Court was taken to Letter No.32172, dated 27.10.2016
issued by the District Sub-Registrar, Khordha,
Bhubaneswar wherefrom it is apparent that with respect
to benchmark valuation relating to Plot No.353, Sarada-
II kisam of Jayadev Vihar Mouza, was at
Rs.14,40,00,000/-. The learned Arbitrator has stated
just around two years before this letter in his Report
Ex.F.A. No.1 of 2017 Page 47 of 49
dated 09.06.2014 that the market value of Scheduled
Plot No.353 as on 09.01.2013 would be Rs.14 crores per
acre. Therefore, this Court has reason to believe that
there is no truthfulness in the statement of JDr and this
Court has strong material to accept the market value as
determined by the learned Arbitrator.
10. Being thus the position, this Court does not find
infirmity or good ground to show indulgence in the
execution appeal as preferred by the JDr.
11. In view of Order dated 03.04.2025 passed in the case of
Biranchi Narayan Das and others Vs. State of Odisha ,
Civil Appeal No.4769 of 2025 (arising out of SLP(C)
No.3862 of 2018), granting liberty to the DHr to contend
that the executing Court cannot go behind the
determination of value of the subject-land by the learned
Arbitrator, this Court having examined found that the
JDr had no material to suggest that market value of Plot
No.353 in Mouza: Jayadev Vihar, which was not covered
by road and drain at the relevant point of time, would be
Rs.7 crores per acre; but the DHr laying stress on the
documentary evidence could demonstrate that the
valuation determined by the learned Arbitrator is
flawless.
12. Under the above premises, this Court modifies the Order
dated 11.08.2017 of the learned Single Judge passed in
Ex.F.A. No.1 of 2017 Page 48 of 49
Ex.P. No.2 of 2015 to the extent that the State of Odisha
is now required to pay to the DHr, respondents herein,
the amount by calculating at the rate of Rs.14 crores per
acre with respect to land measuring Ac.1.837 decimals
in Plot No.353, Jayadev Vihar Mouza as determined by
the learned Arbitrator. The JDr is directed to deposit the
balance amount, if not already deposited, with the
Registry, within four weeks from today. Upon such
deposit, the DHr are entitled to be disbursed with such
balance amount. Needless to add that interest, if any,
accrued on the deposits made by the JDr by virtue of
order of this Court, the DHr is entitled for the same.
13. With the above observations, the appeal, being Ex.F.A.
No.1 of 2017 stands disposed of. Parties are to bear their
own costs.
I agree.
(HARISH TANDON) (MURAHARI SRI RAMAN)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
Signature Not
Verified
High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Digitally Signed
rd
Signed by: ASWINI KUMAR The 3 September, 2026//Aswini/Laxmikant
SETHY
Designation: Personal
Assistant (Secretary in-charge)
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH
COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 07-Sep-2026 13:44:32
Ex.F.A. No.1 of 2017 Page 49 of 49