A reference under the Land Acquisition Act cannot be rejected for non-appearance; it must be resolved based on merits, reinforcing the duty of the Civil Judge to exercise jurisdiction appropriately.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, J.

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Petitioners in this writ application seeks to assail the order dated 16^th August, 1995 (Annexure-2), passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sambalpur in L.A. Case No.119 of 1991 by which, the reference under Section 18 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 (for brevity ‘the Act’) was rejected for non-appearance of the applicant in the reference.

2.1. The Petitioners also pray for setting aside the order dated 13^th February, 2025 (Annexure-6) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rairakhol, Sambalpur in C.M.A. No.03 of 2022 filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to recall the order dated 16^th August, 1995 and to re-hear the reference under Section-18 of the Act afresh on merit.

3. Mr. Debata, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that for acquisition of land of the predecessor of the Petitioners, namely, Nilamani Prusti, land acquisition case was initiated and an award under Section 11 of the Act was passed. The said Nilamani Prusti, being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, filed an application to refer the matter to the Civil Court for enhancement of compensation. Accordingly, the matter was referred to the learned Sub- Judge, Sambalpur [subsequently re-designated as Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sambalpur] and L.A. Case No.119 of 1991 was registered under Section 18 of the Act in his file. The said Nilamani Prusti, on being noticed, appeared through his Counsel and sought for adjournment to file objection. The matter was lastly taken up on 16^th August, 1995 on which date, neither said Nilamani Prusti nor his Counsel appeared. As such, the reference was rejected by the impugned order under Annexure-2 (supra).

3.1. The Petitioners, being the legal heirs of the said Nilamani Prusti, were unaware of the order dated 16^th August, 1995. Subsequently, husband of the Petitioner No.1, namely, Nilamani Prusti died. When L.A. Case No.123/2009 of 1991/2017 initiated at the instance of a co-villager and adjacent land owner, namely, Asadhu Deheri was disposed of, the Petitioners enquired about their case. They being the rustic villagers could not get any information instantly. Thus, they engaged an advocate and applied for certified copy of L.A. Case No.119 of 1991 on 29^th June, 2022, which was made available to them on 23^rd September, 2022. From the certified copy of the order sheet in L.A. Case No.119 of 1991, they came to know that learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sambalpur, vide order dated 16^th August, 1995, had rejected the reference on the ground of non-appearance of the applicant in the reference. As such, the Petitioners filed C.M.A. No.03 of 2022 under Section 151 C.P.C. to recall order dated 16^th August, 1995 passed in L.A. Case No.119 of 1991 and to re-hear the reference on merit.

3.2. It is further submitted by Mr. Debata, learned counsel for the Petitioners that the delay in filing the petition under Section 151 C.P.C. was not intentional and the circumstances were beyond the control of the Petitioners. They were unaware of the proceedings in L.A. Case No.119 of 1991 during life time of their predecessor, namely, Nilamani Prusti. It is also stated that the learned advocate of Nilamani Prusti never intimated the proceedings in L.A. Case No.119 of 1991. Thus, they prayed for condoning the delay and to pass an order recalling the order dated 16^th August, 1995 in L.A. Case No.119 of 1991.

3.3. It is also submitted by Mr. Debata, learned counsel for the Petitioners tha