The main legal point established in the judgment is that the principles of res-judicata and estoppel may not apply in cases where the claimants were not at fault for the delay caused in the disposal of the Reference petition, and the Court has a duty to prevent injustice by granting appropriate relief.

P.K.BHASIN, J: The present appeal has been filed by the Union of India against the order dated 19/10/2006 passed by the Additional District Judge in a Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in respect of the Award no. 883 pertaining to the revenue estate of the village Mohd. Pur Munirka, Delhi.

2. The relevant facts for the purpose of the present appeal may be noted. The land of the respondents was acquired by the Government and an award was passed in pursuance thereof and compensation was awarded. Feeling dissatisfied by the quantum of compensation awarded, a Reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was sought by the claimants and the Land Acquisition Collector made the Reference to the District Judge.

3. The Reference was however dismissed in default on 27/05/1976 due to non-appearance on behalf of the claimants. Upon an application dated 4/8/1980 made by the respondents herein the reference petition was restored on 6/8/87. (Copy of the order dated 6/8/87 was shown to me by the counsel for the respondent during the course of hearing of this appeal). While restoring the Reference, the Reference court also ordered that no interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act would be awarded to the claimants, in the event of their succeeding finally in getting enhanced compensation and becoming entitled to get interest, for the period from 27/05/1976 till 29/04/1986 during which the Reference had remained dismissed. While deciding the Reference finally and enhancing the compensation the learned Additional District Judge, however, passed directions for payment of interest also as provided under Sections 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act even for the aforesaid period of non-pendency of the Reference proceedings relying upon the judgement of Supreme Court in “Khazan Singh (Dead) by LRs v. UOI”, AIR 2002 SC 726, wherein the Supreme Court had held that a Reference made by the Land Acquisition Collector cannot be dismissed in default and it is the duty of the Court to answer the Reference even in the absence of parties.

4. Feeling aggrieved with the Award of the Reference Court only to the extent that it granted interest to the claimants even for the period when the Reference was not pending because of its dismissal-in-default, the Union of India has come up in appeal. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the Reference Court had while restoring the Reference, which was earlier dismissed in default due to non-appearance in the matter on behalf of the claimants seeking enhancement in compensation, specifically put a condition for restoration that the claimants in the event of succeeding finally in getting enhancement in compensation would not be entitled to get interest on the enhanced amount for the period during which the proceedings were not pending and that order was not challenged by the claimants and so the successor Judge could not have ignored that order and awarded interest for the period the Reference was not pending. Mr. Poddar submitted that the direction for payment of interest in the impugned order could not have been passed on the principles of res-judicata. It was also contended that the claimants having not challenged the earlier order of the Court disentitling them to get interest were estopped from claiming the same subsequently in the same proceedings since in fact it was impliedly on their representation to the Court that they would not claim interest if their Reference was restored, that the Reference was restored by the Court. It was also contended that even if the Reference could not have been dismissed in default, as observed in the impugned order and the Court could not have passed an order at the time of restoration of the proceedings that the claimants seeking enhancement in compensation would not be entitled to claim interest for the delayed payment even in the event of their succeeding finally, the claimants having not