State Of Odisha vs Sri Biranchi Narayan Das & Ors.

MURAHARI SRI RAMAN, J.—

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 Execution Petition No.2 of 2015^{11.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.} on the ground of non-consideration of show-cause reply dated 23^rd June, 2015, reply dated 23^rd September, 2015 to the rejoinder of the Judgment Debtor (JDr) and reply of the JDr dated 9^th February, 2016 to the objection filed by the Decree Holder (DHr).

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. 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.

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 21.05.2009^{22.See, Biranchi Narayan Das and Others Vrs. State of Odisha and Others, 2009 SCC OnLine Ori 223 = 108 (2009) CLT 397.} 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, ―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.

The DHr filed writ petition registered as O.J.C. No.11342 of 2000 with the following prayer(s):

Disposing of said case, this Court vide Judgment dated 21.05.2009^{33.See, Biranchi Narayan Das and Others Vrs. State of Odisha and Others, 2009 SCC OnLine Ori 223 = 108 (2009) CLT 397.}, directed as follows:

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:

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:

Accordingly, the learned Arbitrator submitted Report dated 09.06.2014, relevant portion of which reads thus:

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:

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:

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.

When the fact of pendency of appeal filed at the behest of State Government against the Judgment/Order dated 11.08.2017 in Execution Petition No.2 of 2015 is brought to the notice of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, said Civil Appeal^{44.Biranchi Narayan Das and Others Vrs. State of Odisha, Civil Appeal No.4769 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.3862 of 2018).} got disposed of on 03.04.2025 with the following observations:

In view of Order dated 03.04.2025 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.4769 of 2025 (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.

Heard Sri Sabita Ranjan Pattnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate for the appellant (JDr) and Sri Sukanta Kumar Biswal, learned Advocate for the respondents (DHr).

After conclusion of the hearing, the matter is reserved for preparation and delivery of Judgment/Order.

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.

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 sub-clause (iii)^{55.Clause (a)(iii) of Appendix-II— Principles for determination of market value— specifies that “value of adjacent land or lands in the vicinity;”} 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.

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 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.

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.

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 DHr. The said order of the learned Single Judge is subject-matter of this present appeal.

The learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the show cause reply dated 23^rd June, 2015 along with further submission dated 23^rd September, 2015 and 27^th 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.

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 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 (General) Rules, 1965^{66.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.”}.

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 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.

The learned counsel for the DHr submitted that the State Government (JDr) did not comply with the Order dated 9^th 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 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 the order passed in the FAO in accordance with law” in 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.

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.

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.

Perused the record.

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.

It is trite that a Court executing a decree cannot go behind the decree between the parties or their 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 Vasudev 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.

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 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.

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 said rate of Rs.7 crores per acre”. Accordingly, the 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.

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]. 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.

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 the said rate of Rs.7 crores per acre” since the learned 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.

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.

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 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.

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 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

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 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 available. ^{77.See, Additional Affidavit/Objection dated 29.08.2014 to the Report of the learned Arbitrator filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.} 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:

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 both parties”, the learned Arbitrator “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 Das, OJC No.11342 of 2000 2009 SCC OnLine Ori 223 = 108 (2009) CLT 397, that:

The learned Arbitrator clarified the position that:

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:

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.

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:

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. 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.

So far as sanctity of determination of valuation of learned Arbitrator, being appointed by the Hon’ble 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 fundamental right.” ^{88.Triveniben Vrs. State of Gujurat, (1989) 1 SCC 678, pr. 26.} . Stemming on the doctrine of 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.

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 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.

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 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.

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 of the land in question”. There is no iota of evidence 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 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.

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.

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.

Under the above premises, this Court modifies the Order dated 11.08.2017 of the learned Single Judge passed in 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.

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.