Legal heirs must be properly notified in land acquisition hearings for fair proceedings; insufficient representation voids previous awards.

JUDGMENT :

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode).

2. The Petitioners in this writ petition seek to challenge the order dated 16^th July, 2022 under Annexure-10 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nuapada in CMA No.140 of 2017 and further prays for a direction to allow the petition for restoration of LAR Case No.05 of 2010 (inadvertently typed as CMA No.140 of 2017 in the prayer portion of the writ petition filed under Section 151 of CPC).

3. Mr. D. Mund, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the predecessors of the Petitioners, namely, Anata Ram Sagaria and Rameswar Sagaria were the recorded owners of the land acquired. Compensation was awarded under Section 11 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 (for brevity ‘the Act’). Being not satisfied with the quantum of award, they filed an application under Annexure-2 to refer the matter to the civil Court. Accordingly, the Special Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Collector, Land Acquisition, Lower Indra Irrigation Project, Khariar (Opposite Party No.2) referred the matter to the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nuapada under Section 18 of the Act. The said reference was registered as LAR Case No.05 of 2010.

4. It is submitted that the application for reference of the matter under Annexure-2 for higher compensation was filed by Rameswar Sagaria and Anata Ram Sagaria on 18^th July, 2003. But the matter was referred to the civil Court on 21^st January, 2010. By then, said Anata Ram Sagaria had already died on 20^th October, 2009 leaving behind his legal heirs. The death certificate as well as legal heir certificate of Late Anata Ram Sagaria have been annexed to the writ petition as Annexures-4 & 5 respectively. Upon registration of the reference, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nuapada was required to issue notice to the land owners or their legal heirs under Section 20 of the Act. Procedure provided under Section 20 of the Act, which is mandatory in nature, was not complied with in the present case. The same is apparent from the order sheet of LAR Case No.05 of 2010 under Annexure-6. As notice was not served on the recorded tenants or their legal heirs, they had no occasion to know about the proceedings before learned civil Court and the date of hearing of the reference. Thus, they could not remain present on 21^st September, 2013 when the reference was taken up for hearing. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nuapada holding that the land owners are not interested to proceed with the case, confirmed the award under Section 11 of the Act. The legal heirs of the Petitioners having come to know about the order dated 21^st September, 2013 under Annexure-6, filed an application under Section 151 of CPC for setting aside the said order and to restore LAR Case No.05 of 2010 for hearing of the reference on merit. The said petition was also rejected vide order dated 16^th July, 2022 under Annexure-10. Thus, being aggrieved, the Petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking for the aforesaid relief.

5. It is further submitted by Mr. Mund, learned counsel for the Petitioners that although there is reference in the order sheet under Annexure-6 that on some dates the Petitioners therein (land owners) were represented, but, in fact, Anata Ram Sagaria could not have been represented as he was dead by the time reference of the case was made to the civil Court. Rameswar Sagaria was also bed ridden by then. Be that as it may, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nuapda was required to answer the reference on merit. It appears from the order dated 21^st September, 2013 under Ann