Indus Valley Times

By prasanna paikaray

Khordha/Odisha, Aug. 6 : A fresh controversy has emerged over land acquired for the expansion of National Highway-16 in Khordha district, with official documents indicating that land for which compensation had already been paid by the Government more than two decades ago allegedly remained recorded in private names and was subsequently sold and mutated, raising serious questions about lapses in the revenue administration.

Documents accessed  that the Land Acquisition Officer and Competent Authority (NH-16), Khordha, has formally written to the Tahasildar, Khordha, seeking immediate correction of the Record of Rights (ROR) in an abatement case involving Plot No.- 702 under Khata No.159 of village Pallatotapada, acquired for the four-laning of the then National Highway-5, now NH-16.The communication, bearing Letter No.212 dated July 10, 2024, suggests that despite completion of acquisition proceedings and payment of compensation, the acquired land was never reflected in government records in the name of the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH). Instead, it allegedly continued to remain under private ownership in revenue records, paving the way for further property transactions.

According to the official note, the dispute traces its origin to Sabik Plot No.390, measuring Ac.1.800, originally recorded in the name of Champa Dei, wife of Mathura Prasad Ram of Khordha Town.

Subsequently, following a decree passed by the Court of the Munsif, Khordha in Civil Suit No.44 of 1976 and mutation proceedings, an area of Ac.1.660 was recorded in the name of Gini Bai, wife of Madanlal. Based on these records, the Land Acquisition Authority paid compensation for Ac.0.107 of the plot during the highway widening project in 2002. Documents  accompanying the official correspondence, including the compensation voucher, indicate that Gini Bai received compensation for the acquired land under the National Highway acquisition proceedings.The

 Land Acquisition Cell has pointed out that before the 2002 acquisition, another portion measuring Ac.0.140 had already been acquired. Consequently, the total acquired area comes to Ac.0.247, which, according to the authority, should have been reflected in the Record of Rights in favour of the Government of India.

However, the official communication states that the acquired land was never entered in the name of the National Highways authority during the abatement proceedings.The

 consequence, according to the Land Acquisition Officer, was significant.

Since the acquired portion continued to exist in private revenue records, the original landholder allegedly executed fresh sale deeds. The documents state that Champa Dei sold Ac.0.777 to Nihar Ranjan Hota and another Ac.0.777 to Srutiranjan Mohanty, leaving only Ac.0.246, which nearly corresponds to the total area already acquired by the National Highway authorities.The

 letter further alleges that even this remaining portion—which should have stood vested with the Government after acquisition—was subsequently transferred to another purchaser through mutation.In

 unusually strong words, the Land Acquisition Officer observed in the official communication, “It is not understood how mutation was allowed when the abatement case is pending for correction of ROR.”

The remark has raised serious administrative questions regarding the functioning of the revenue machinery.

Revenue experts say that once land is legally acquired under the National Highways Act and compensation is paid, the land ordinarily vests in the Central Government free from encumbrances. Mutation and updating of revenue records are expected to follow the acquisition to prevent future transactions involving government land.The official correspondence indicates that this crucial step may not have been completed in the present case, allegedly allowing multiple property transactions over land already acquired for a public infrastructure project.The Land Acquisition Officer has requested the Tahasildar, Khordha, to immediately correct the ROR by recording Ac.0.247 in favour of the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India, and resolve the issue without further delay.

The case assumes significance because it highlights possible gaps in post-acquisition record management rather than questioning the acquisition itself. Legal experts note that if government-acquired land continues to remain in private revenue records, unsuspecting purchasers may enter into transactions without being aware of the acquisition history, potentially leading to prolonged litigation.

The documents also raise broader questions that now await answers from the district revenue administration:

Why was the acquired land not recorded in the name of the Ministry even after compensation had been paid? Were

 mutation proceedings carried out without verifying the acquisition records?

Did the revenue authorities overlook pending abatement proceedings while approving subsequent mutations? How

many subsequent registrations were allowed on land that had already vested with the Government?

Who will be held accountable if government land has been transferred through private transactions due to administrative lapses?

Officials of the Revenue Department have not yet publicly responded to the observations made by the Land Acquisition Officer. It also remains unclear whether corrective action has been initiated following the July 2024 communication.

As the matter involves land acquired for one of Odisha’s most important National Highway projects, the issue is likely to invite closer scrutiny from both the Revenue Department and the National Highway authorities.