LexKHAZAN SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. versus UNION OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
•
KHAZAN SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS.
A
v.
UNION OF INDIA
JANUARY, 2002
[K.T. THOMAS AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.)
B
Land Acquisition Act, !894-Sections 18, 20 and 26.
Reference made by Collector to Civil Court-Dismissed for default-
Correctness of-Held, non-participation of any party would not confer C
jurisdiction on the Civil Court to dismiss the reference for default-Civil
Procedure Code 1908: Order 9, Rule 9 & Section 151.
Land of the appellant was acquired under the provisions of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 and an award was passed by the Collector. Not D
satisfied with the award, appellant filed an application under Section 18
of the Act for making a reference to Civil Court. Accordingly Collector
made the reference. Civil Court dismissed the reference for default. In the
meanwhile appellant died and his legal heirs filed an application for
restoration of reference as per Order 9 Rule 9 and Section 151 of the CPC.
It was rejected by Civil Court and High Court. Hence this appeal.
E
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : Civil Court has to pass an award in answer to the reference
made by the Collector under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. If F
any party to whom notice has been served by the Civil Court did not
participate in the inquiry it would only be at his risk because an award
would be passed perhaps to the detriment of the concerned party. But non-
participation of any party would not confer jurisdiction on the Civil Court
to dismiss the reference for default. [433-FI
Joseph v. Government of Kera/a, (1991) 2 Kerala Law Times 69 and
Jogi Sahu v. Collector, AIR (1991) Orissa 283, approved.
Abdul Kareem v. State of MP., AIR (1964) MP 171; Munda v. Oraon,
AIR (1970) Patna 209 and Sanai v. State, AIR (1974) Patna 176, referred
to.
431
G
H
432
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2002] I S.C.R.
A
CIVIL APPEL LA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 667 of
2002.
From the Judgment and Order dated 23. 7.2001 of the Delhi High Court
in F .A.O. No. 354 of 200 I.
B
Ms. Suruchii Aggarwal for the Appellants.
N.N. Goswami, Ms. Neera Gupta and D.S. Mehra for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
C
THOMAS, J. Leave granted.
Can the reference made by a Collector under Section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short 'the Act') be dismissed for default? A Civil
Court dismissed the reference for default of the claimant as he failed to be
present when the matter was taken up. He made an unsuccessful b.id to have
D the reference restored to the file. The High Court also did not help him as per
the impugned order.
Appellants are the legal heirs of one Khazan Singh. Certain area of land
belonging to the said Khazan Singh was acquired under the provisions of the
Act and an award was passed by the Collector (Land Acquisition Officer) on
E 16.7.1984, fixing the compensation payable to the land owners~ As Khazan
Singh was not satisfied with the amount fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer
he moved an application under Section 18 of the Ad for making a reference
to the Civil Court. The Land Acquisition Officer, acting on the said application
made the reference. It was pending before the Court of a District Judge. On
p
29.9.1997 the Additional District Judge dismissed the reference on the premise
that "neither the applicant nor his counsel appeared in the Court on the said
date".
In the meanwhile Khazan Singh died and the present appellants filed an
application quoting Order 9 Rule 9 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil
G Procedure, ('Code' for short) for restoration of the reference. The Additional
District Judge rejected the said petition on the ground that there was no
sufficient cause for the absence of the appellant or his counsel on 29.9.1997.
Appellants thereafter filed an appeal before the High Court. The learned
Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the appeal, mainly on the ground
H that absence of the appellant and his counsel has not been satisfactorily
,
KHAZAN SINGH v. U.0.1. [K.T. THOMAS, J.]
433
explained, and also on the ground that there was unexplained delay in moving A
the application for restoration. It is said judgment of the High Court which
iS now being challenged in this appeal.
Section 18 of the Act empowers a person interested in the land to move
by a written application to the Collector requiring that the matter be referred
for determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement B
of the land, thExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.