RAJ MANI versus THE COLLECTOR, RAIPUR

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 59 · Decided: 25-07-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK

Judgment (excerpt)

-
RAJ MANI 
A 
v. 
THE COLLECTOR, RAIPUR 
JULY 25, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, J.1.] 
B 
Land Acquisitio11 Ac~ 1894: 
Ss. 18, 20 a11d 26(2)-Referenc~Ex parte order passed by reference 
Court dismissing the refcre11ce for default of claimant-Application by C 
claimant under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside ex parte order on the 
ground that he was not se/ved with the notic~Held, se1vice of notice was 
not duly effected on the claimant-It should be the duty of the court to have 
the notice se1ved-An applicatio11 under Order 9 Rule 9 read withs. 151 CPC 
is the proper remedy a11d procedure-Claimant lightly filed the application, 
though u11der Order 9 Rule 13, but it could be treated as one under Order 9 D 
Rule 9 read with s.151 CPC-Additio11al Distlict Judge 1ightly enteitained the 
application a11d set aside the ex pmte order. 
Code of Civil Procedi1re, 1908 : 
Order 9, Rule 9 R/W s.151-Refere11ce u11der s. 18 of Land Acquisition 
Act, 1894 dismissed for default of c/aimant~laima11t alleging non service of 
notic~emedyHeld, an application under Order 9 Rule 9 read withs. 151 
is the proper remedy and procedure. 
Practice and Procedure : 
Refere11ce under s. 18 of Land Acquisition Ac~ 1894 dismissed for 
default of claimant~laimant alleging non-service of notic~Remedy-Held 
an application under Order 9 Rule 9 read with s. 151 CPC is thr proper 
re111edy and procedure. 
Deep Chand and Ors. v. La11d Acquisition Officer & Ors., (1994] 4 
SCC 99; State of Mizoram v, Biakclthawna, [1995] 1 SCC 156 and State of 
Maharashtra v. M.S. Hatkw; (1995] 3 SCC 316, held inapplicable. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1885 of 
E 
F 
G 
1981. 
I-I 
59 
60 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 4S.C.R. 
A 
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.6.79 of the Madhya Pradesh 
B 
c 
High Court in C.R. No. 1055 of 1978. 
C.L. Sahu for the Appellant. 
Sakesh Kumar, S.K. Agnihotri for the Respondent. 
The following order of the Court was delivered. 
This appeal. by special leave arises from the order passed by the 
learned single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court on June 29, 1979 
in C.R. No. 439 of 1977. The admitted facts are that the lands of the 
appellant came to be acquired for a public purpose. The Land Acquisition 
Officer made his award dated November 15, 1973 awarding compensation 
@ Rs. 1,000 per acre. Dissatisfied therewith, the respondent made an 
application on April 29, 1974 for reference under Section 18. In fur-
therance thereof, a reference came to be filed in the Court of the Addi-
D tional District Judge, Raipur. The District Judge found the statement as 
required under Section 19 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 
the "Act"). On July 1, 1975, he directed issuance of notice to the appellant. 
ll came lo be adjourned from lime to time for service on the appellant. 
Ultimately, on February 2, 1976 in the proceed;ngs of the Court the notice 
E 
F 
was stated lo have been served on the appellant but no date thereon was 
put nor was it signed by the witnesses. Accordingly, by proceedings dated 
February 10, 1976 the reference Court passed order, after setting him 
ex-parle dismissing the reference for default and nil award. As against the 
order the appellant filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13, CPC. The 
civil Judge allowed the application and set aside the order against which 
the State went in revision. The learned single Judge in the impugned order 
has held that the application for restoration does not lie. The only remedy 
open to the appellant was to file an appeal under Section 54 of the Act to 
the High Court. Thus this appeal by special leave. 
The question is : whether the view taken by the High Court is correct 
G in law ? It is contended by Shri Sahu, learned counsel for the appellanll, 
that the appellant had not been served with the notice. As as consequence, 
when he came to know of the award made by the reference Court confirm-
ing the award of the Land Acquisition Officer within three days, he filed 
an application under Order 9, Rule 13, CPC to set aside the ex-parte order 
H and restoration of the case so as lo get an opportunity of being heard. The 
RAIMANI v_ COLLECTOR 
61 
Additional District Judge rightly set aside the order. The view of the High A 
Court was not correct in law. Shri Agnihotri, learned counsel appearing 
for the State contended that the order of the reference Court is not correct 
in law. It was not an award of the court. In other words,

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.