A reference Court is bound to issue notice to all interested persons and proceed to determine the reference under Sec. 20 of the Land Acquisition Act, even if the person at whose instance the reference is made fails to appear or produce evidence.

JUDGMENT

1. Claimants Nos.,6 and 7 in L.A.O.P.No.57 of 1990 moved the instant Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for brevity 'the Code, 1908') impugning the Order dtd. 13/8/2004 in I.A.No.14 of 1998 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gudur, filed under Order 9 Rule 9 r/w Sec. 151 of the Code, 1908 seeking to restore the L.A.O.P. to file.

2. Heard the submissions of Sri P. Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel for the Appellants/Claimant Nos.,6 and 7 and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. Perused the material on record.

3. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts leading to preferring this appeal in brief are as follows:

3.1. The lands of the Appellants/Claimant Nos.,6 and 7 were acquired by the Government for the purpose of Kandalaru Reservoir under Telugu Ganga Project at Tamancherla Village.

3.2. The claimants received the compensation amount under protest.

3.3. Thereupon, the Special Collector, Land Acquisition, made a reference of the matter to the Court under Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (for brevity 'the Act') which culminated into L.A.O.P.No.57 of 1990 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Gudur (hereinafter referred 'Reference Court').

3.4. Notices were issued to the claimants. Though the claimants appeared through an Advocate before the Reference Court, they failed to file the claim petition.

3.5. After hearing the learned Government Pleader, the learned Judge answered the reference by forfeiting the right of the claimants to file their claim petition.

3.6. Thereafter, the Claimants Nos., 6 and 7 filed I.A.No. 14 of 1998 under Order 9 Rule 9 r/w 151 of the Code, 1908 seeking to set aside the ex parte Order passed against the claimants dtd. 28/1/1997 and to permit them to file their claim statements to contest the petition by restoring the O.P.

3.7. While so, the learned Government Pleader reported no Counter on the said I.A.

4. Enquiry-finding:

4.1. The Claimant No.6 was examined as PW.1.

4.2. The learned Judge dismissed I.A.No.14 of 1998 stating that the Court answered the reference on merits after hearing the learned Assistant Government Pleader and as the matter was disposed of on merits, the petition under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code, 1908, is not maintainable, advised the claimants to prefer an appeal against the said Orders. Grounds of Appeal:

5. Aggrieved by the impugned Order, the Claimant Nos., 6 and 7 approached this Court on the grounds that:

5.1. The claimants on acquisition of their land by the Government, have settled down at various places, consequently, they could not contact their counsel to prosecute proceedings.

5.2. They were paid meager compensation by the Government.

5.3. The Order cannot be said to have been passed on merits in absence of claimants and therefore, it shall be treated as an ex parte order as per Order 17 Rule 2 of the Code, 1908.

5.4. No prejudice would be caused to the Government if the petition is restored and disposed of on merits. 5.5. The reference Court shall have to dispose of the matter on merits and;

5.6. The Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the Courts should not have hyper technical approach while dealing with applications to set aside the ex parte orders and liberal approach should be adopted.

Arguments advanced at the Bar

6. Learned counsel for the Claimant Nos., 6 and 7 in elaboration to what has been stated in the grounds of appeal would contend that the learned reference Judge cannot pass any order on merits in the absence of the party and contra pleadings and that the Reference court had erroneously dismissed the application for restoration of the petition to its original number, despite the Government reported no counter.

7. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent would submit that the appeal is devoid of merits and that the Appellants/Claimant Nos. 6 and 7 kept silent for 6 years without filing their claim statements during the pendency of O.P. and made the court