IMPORTANT POINT
In reference u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, when the reference Court passed order, after setting him ex-parte dismissing the reference for default and nill award, the appropriate remedy for the claimant would be Order 9, Rule 9 r/ws 151, Civil Procedure Code.

Headnote:LAND ACQUISITIONS-Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Sections 18 & 19-Award of compensation-Reference-Dismissed for default-Ex-parte order-Appropriate provisions that would be applicable to claimant would be Order 9 Rule 9 r/ws 151 Civil Procedure Code. (Civil Procedure Code, 1908-Order 9 Rule 9 and Section 151).
       Held that upon an application made under Section 18 of the Act the Land Acquisition Officer/Collector, when he receives the application within the limitation prescribed under the Act, is enjoined to make a reference, as above mentioned in Section 19. Upon receipt of those applications, the Court should cause the notices notice served on the applicants, as well as all interested persons and Land Acquisition Officer/Collector. The notice required to be served as is envisaged in Order 5 of the CPC and the manner of service has been indicated thereunder. Therefore, it should be the duty of the Court to have the notice served. It is seen that the notice was not properly served on the applicant. It would appear that notice was serve on the father of the appellant, Brij Mohan Lal who is now found to have died on December 20, 1973, i.e., much before the date of the alleged service. It would, therefore, be clear that the process has not duly effected the service on the appellant. As a consequence, he did not have any occasion to appear before the Court. (Para 3)
       Further held : If the award in such circumstances came to be passed after setting aside the claimant ex-parte, though an appeal would lie under Section 54 of the Act against such an award, alternative remedy is also available. The appellate Court may not be in a position to decide the correctness of the award except again to fall back upon the question whether notice he properly served on the claimant and whether his remaining ex-parte is correct in law. That question could equally be gone into on an application filed by the claimant either under Order 9, Rule 9 CPC or under Order 9, Rule 13 or Section 151, CPC. (Para 4)

ORDER

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 furtherance thereof, a reference came to be filed in the Court of the Additional 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. It came to be adjourned from time to time for service on the appellant. Ultimately, on February 2, 1976 in the proceedings of the Court the notice was stated to 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-parte 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.

2. The question is: whether the view taken by the High Court is correct in law ? It is contended by Shri Sahu, learned counsel for the appellant, that the appellant had not been served with the notice. As a consequence, when he came to know of the award made by the reference Court confirming 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 and restoration of the case so as to get an opportunity of being heard. The Additional District Judge rightly set aside the order. The view of the High 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, every award is not a decree and, therefore, the provisions of the CPC do not apply to the given set of facts. The appellant is not a defendant. Therefore, Order 9, Rule 13 does not apply since reference Court is not a civil Court. Section 151 also does not apply. Therefore, the view taken by the High Court is correct in law. In support thereof, he places strong reliance on the judgments of this Court in Deep Chand & Ors. v. Land Acquisition Officer & Ors.1 and State of Mizoram v. Biakchhawna2.

3. With a view to appreciate the respec tive contentions, it is necessary to read relevant provisions of the Act. Section 53 of the Act envisages that "(S)ave in so far as they may be inconsistent with anything contained in this Act, the provisions of the CPC shall apply to all proceedings before the Court under this Act". It would thus be clear that so long as there is no inconsistency between the provisions of the Act and the CPC, all the provisions contained in CPC shall apply to the proceedings under the Act. "Court" has been defined in Section 2(d) of the Act to mean "a principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction unless the appropriate Government has appointed a special judicial officer within any specified local limits to perform the functions of the Court under this Act". When reference was made under Section 18, it should be to the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction or special judicial officer within any specified local limits to perform the functions of the Court. Section 19 envisages that upon an application made un

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

1996 Supreme(SC) 1122

IMPORTANT POINTIn reference u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, when the reference Court passed order, after setting him ex-parte dismissing the reference for default and nill award, the appropriate remedy for the claimant would be Order 9, Rule 9 r/ws 151, Civil Procedure Code.

Cases Referred (3)

Judicial Analysis

IMPORTANT POINT
In reference u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, when the reference Court passed order, after setting him ex-parte dismissing the reference for default and nill award, the appropriate remedy for the claimant would be Order 9, Rule 9 r/ws 151, Civil Procedure Code.