Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Vinay Joshi, J.
Jyoti Mahesh Agrawal – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Chief Engineer – Respondent
Writ Petition Nos. 1667, 1669, 1836 To1842, 1860 & 2396 of 2022
Decided On : 19-12-2022
Order IX Rule 13 - Land Acquisition - Sec. 11, 19, 21, 23, 51, 60, 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - The court considered the legality and validity of impugned orders passed under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, treating orders to be ex-parte. The court discussed the applicability of Order IX Rule 13 and the principles of natural justice in the context of the Land Acquisition Act, and concluded that the impugned orders were unsustainable in the eyes of the law.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, owners of agricultural land proposed for acquisition, challenged the legality and validity of impugned orders passed under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, treating orders to be ex-parte. The acquisition proceedings commenced under Sec. 11 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ('the Act of 2013'). The claimants made a Reference under Sec. 64 of the Act for enhancement of compensation. The respondent, Acquiring Body, filed applications under Order IX Rule 13, read with Sec. 151 of the Code for setting aside reference orders stating reference orders to be ex-parte. The Second Authority set aside the orders, restoring the proceedings for fresh adjudication. The petitioners challenged the orders.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned orders were passed after considering the rival contentions and were not ex-parte decisions. The court concluded that the Second Authority erred in holding the orders to be ex-parte and setting them aside under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code. The court also held that the related applications under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code were not maintainable and dismissed them.
Issues: The main issue was whether the impugned orders could be treated as ex-parte and set aside under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the provisions of Order IX Rule 13 of the Code and the principles of natural justice in the context of the Land Acquisition Act. The court emphasized that the mere absence of the respondent's advocate on an insignificant date did not empower the respondent to claim the applicability of Order IX Rule 13 of the Code, and that the impugned orders were passed after considering the rival contentions and were not ex-parte decisions.
Final Decision: All petitions were allowed, the impugned orders were quashed and set aside, and the related applications under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code were dismissed. No order as to costs.
JUDGMENT
1. RULE. Rule is made returnable forthwith.
2. Heard finally by consent learned Counsel appearing for the parties.
3. This batch of petition raises a common question for consideration about the legality and validity of the impugned orders passed under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (the Code) thereby treating orders to be ex-parte. For the sake of convenience all petitions are taken together for disposal.
4. Petitioners are the owner of different pieces of agricultural land which was proposed to be acquired for the Wardha to Nanded Rail Project. The acquisition proceeding has commenced by publication of preliminary notification under Sec. 11 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (' the of 2013'). It was followed by publication of declaration and notices to interested persons, in terms of Sec. 19 and 21 of theof 2013. After holding necessary inquiry respondent no. 3 has passed different Awards in terms of Sec. 23 of theof 2013 determining compensation. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the quantum of compensation, the claimants (land owners) made a Reference in terms of Sec. 64 of theof 2013 to the Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority (First Authority) established under Sec. 51 of theof 2013. In response to the notices, respondent no. 1-Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), Central Railway (acquiring body) put its appearance and contested the claims by filing written statement. The claimants have filed their evidence on affidavit. Likewise, respondent no.1(Acquiring Body) also filed evidence on affidavit in support of resistance. The First Authority has enhanced the rate of compensation vide different reference orders.
5. The respondent no.1-Acquiring Body has filed applications under Order IX Rule 13, read with Sec. 151 of the Code for setting aside reference orders stating reference orders to be ex-parte. The same Authority (for removal of confusion referred as Second Authority) has set aside the orders by holding that there was no cross-examination to the claimants' evidence as well as evidence of the Acquiring Body was not considered by the First Authority. In short, it has been held that, the First Authority has not decided the claims on merit. Therefore, by setting aside reference orders, restored the proceedings filed under Sec. 64 of theof 2013 for fresh adjudication. Those similar orders are subject matter of challenge.
6. Facts of all petition are similar with minor deviation. At the inception, it is advantageous to note the admitted fact of the cases which is rather a matter of record. In all petition, initially, Land Acquisition Officer has determined the compensation against which Reference was made under Sec. 64 of theof 2013. It is not in dispute that in all proceedings, the Acquiring Body was served who in turn put their appearance through Advocate Sawarkar (same advocate in all proceedings) and filed written statements. It is also not in dispute that the Acquiring Body has also filed evidence on affidavit in all proceedings.
7. For the sake of convenience details of all petition have been stated in tabular form as below :
Table
8. Since all matters are identical, for the sake of convenience I took up the facts of Writ Petition No.1667 of 2022 pertaining to claimant (land owner) Jyoti Mahesh Agrawal, whose land admeasuring 2H 42R has been acquired for Wardha to Nanded Rail Project. Award has been passed on 10/7/2017 in terms of Sec. 23 of theof 2013 determining compensation. Being aggrieved by the said Award the claimant made a Reference under Sec. 64 of theof 2013 for enhancement of the compensation. In response to the notices, the Deputy Chief Engineer (works), Railway has appeared through Advocate Sawarkar on 30/10/2019 and filed Written Statement (page 71) on 3/9/2020. Claimant Jyoti Agrawal led evidence on affidavit (page 80) on 28/10/2020. It was accompanied with several documents sup
AI
The court emphasized the necessity of allowing a defendant to participate in proceedings, ruling that procedural errors in ex-parte judgments violate principles of natural justice.
The court emphasized the liberal construction of 'sufficient cause' for setting aside an ex parte decree and the need to balance the interests of both parties to prevent miscarriage of justice.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of rules 8 and 9 of Order IX of the Code of Civil Procedure to reference proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act.
It is not required for a defendant to vacate an order to proceed ex-parte if hearing of the suit has not concluded.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a liberal and sensitive approach by the courts in setting aside ex parte decrees, considering the circumstances of the defendant and t....
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 referen....
Ex parte decree – A party cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own fault at cost of prejudice to adversary - Courts have committed no error in holding that petition under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
