The main legal point established is the obligation of the court to decide references on merit even in absence of the parties and the need for a liberal view in considering delay condonation applications.

Ran Vijai Singh, J. –

Heard Dr. H.N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri Shivam Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2.

2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 1.7.2013 passed by the VI Additional District Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar in Misc. Case No. 89 of 2001 in Land Acquisition Reference No. 279/84 (Naya Bans Saraswati Sahkari Grah Nirman Samiti Ltd. Ghaziabad v. Bhuriya wife of Mohar Singh) by which the petitioner's application dated 11.3.2013 filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act in support of the restoration application seeking recall of the order dated 15.11.1990 has been rejected.

3. The facts giving rise to this case are that the Collector Gautam Budh Nagar, while exercising the power vested in him under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, has referred the matter to the District Judge, which was numbered as Land Acquisition Reference No. 279/84 (Naya Bans Saraswati Sahkari Grah Nirman Samiti Ltd. Ghaziabad v. Bhuriya wife of Mohar Singh). This reference was dismissed in default on 15.11.1990 by the Additional District Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar. The petitioner, herein, has filed restoration application on 17.8.1994. The aforesaid application was dismissed in default on 2.2.2001. The petitioner, herein, has filed another restoration application on 15.3.2001 seeking recall of the order dated 2.2.2001. The said application was also rejected by the court concerned on 20.9.2002.

4. Aggrieved by the order dated 20.9.2002, the petitioner, herein has filed Writ-C No. 3782 of 2003 (Naya Bans Saraswati Grah Nirman Samiti Ltd. v. Sri Harsaroop and others) which was allowed by setting aside the order dated 20.9.2002 vide judgement and order dated 18.12.2012 with the direction to the reference court to decide the restoration application filed by the petitioner. Since the application was filed on 17.8.1994 seeking recall of the order dated 15.11.1990, the application was obviously barred by time, therefore, the petitioner has filed an application seeking condonation of delay, which has been rejected by the impugned order.

5. Sri Tripathi, who appears for the petitioner, submits that there was sufficient reason for not filing the restoration application after the reference was dismissed in default on 15.11.1990 coupled with the fact that the counsel who had been appearing in the reference has not informed the order of dismissal in default but the court below has erred in dismissing the application without addressing itself on the merit of the reference.

6. Refuting the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel as well as Sri Shivam Yadav, who appears for the respondent no. 2, submitted that non-information of the counsel to the client is one part of the matter but what has been done by the party, nowhere has been explained in the application. In their submissions, the petitioner is not an illiterate person but he is the secretary of the Society having P.HD. degree as reflect from his name, therefore it was incumbent upon him to inquire about the progress of the reference. It has also been submitted that it was not first default, the petitioner has also chosen not to appear in the year 2001 too and got the restoration application dismissed in default. The submission has been made that in case, the impugned order is set aside and the court below is directed to hear the reference on merit and in case, the reference is allowed, and amount of compensation is enhanced, in that eventuality, the state exchequer would be burdened with the interest which may be of the last 32 years. In their submissions, the impugned order does not suffer from any error of law and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

7. Sri Tripathi, in response thereto, has submitted that there was sufficient explanation for not filing the restoration application wel