JUDGMENT 1. For the reasons stated therein, the application is allowed. 2. One Mahanta Raghubir Das is permitted to represent the deity Sri Laxminarayan Dev and Sri Satyanarayan Dev, Bije Balaram Kota Matha, Puri. 3. The consolidated cause title incorporating the substitution be filed within a week. W.P.(C) No.4737 of 2003 4. The challenge in this writ petition is to the acquisition of land measuring Ac.95.13 decimal in Plot Nos.239, 239/502 and 239/503 under Khata No.128 in Mouza-Sipasurabali in the district of Puri. The Petitioner's claim is that despite being a recorded tenant, the Petitioner was not made a party to the land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LA Act). Even after the passing of the award, it was only at the stage of apportionment of compensation in proceedings under Section 30 of the LA Act was notice issued to the Petitioner. 5. Initially, the Court had dismissed this writ petition by an order dated 12th August, 2021 on the ground that the Petitioner had not been able to convince the Court about being the lawful owner in possession of land in question. Subsequently, in Review Petition No.171 and 172 of 2021, this Court by an order dated 11th March, 2022 recalled the earlier order. The reason for recall of the order was that there was an order by the Consolidation Officer, Puri in favour of the present Petitioner in Objection Case No.2567 and 2568 of 1996 which had attained finality and which order had recognized them to be the recorded tenant since 1927. The learned AGA confirmed to this Court that the said order had not been appealed against by the State. Accordingly, this Court recalled the earlier order dated 12th August, 2021 and restored the writ petition for hearing. 6. This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. Yashobanta Das, learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. Ishwar Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State. 7. It transpires that even if the Court were to accept the plea of the Petitioner and invalidate the proceedings under the LA Act, it would still be open to the Government to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings but, this time it would have to be under the 2013 Act. The other factor that requires to be noted is that the land in question is to an extent of Ac. 95.13 decimal and in Puri district. The other factor that requires to be noted is that the land in question is to an extent of Ac. 95.13 decimal and in Puri district. The State would have to make its stand clear whether it still requires the land and for that purpose, if it willing to follow the procedure under the 2013 Act. 8. Mr. Ishwar Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel seeks time for instructions. At his request list in the main list on 3rd April, 2023.9. List on 18th January, 2023.