Advocates appeared :
For the Appellant : Brij Mohan Prasad
For the Respondent : Dharmendra Kaurab, Akshit Arjaria

ORDER : – With the consent of the parties, the matter is finally heard. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 20-9-2006 passed by the Third Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Khandwa whereby the application filed by the petitioner under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been dismissed in default.

2. It is submitted that the petitioner was the owner of the land in question and his land has been acquired for the construction of Dam for public purpose of Indira Sagar Project. A notification under section 4 of the Act was issued and the objections were called under section 6(3) of the Act of 1894. The petitioner filed his objection but the same was not considered. All the proceedings were completed and the award was passed and thereafter a notice for intimation of the Award under section 12 of the Act of 1894 was issued to the land owners whose lands were acquired for construction of the dam. As the amount of award was on a very lower side and was not in accordance with the guidelines, therefore, the petitioner preferred an application under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, which was referred as reference before the Court below for proper consideration of the Award. The reference case was registered as Reference Case No. 282/2005. The learned Trial Court has dismissed the case for want of prosecution on 20-9-2006 and the reason is given that the applicant is not producing evidence in the case. It is submitted that similar issues came up before this Court for consideration and the orders have been passed, considering the settled legal proposition in the case of Khazan Singh (dead) by LRs. vs. Union of India, reported in (2002) 2 SCC 242 wherein it is categorically held that the reference is required to be answered and the same cannot be dismissed in default. This Court has also considered the aforesaid judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and has passed various orders in the case of W. P. No. 758/15, Nageenchand vs. Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation Officers and others and W. P. No. 763/15, Ishrat Bee vs. Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation Officers and others. The petitioner is praying for a similar relief which has been extended by the aforesaid cases.

3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that the order impugned has been passed in the year 2006 and the present petition has been filed in the year 2019 without there being any proper explanation for the delay. It is submitted that the judgment passed by the Khazan Singh (supra) is of no help to the petitioner as he has not approached this Court within time. He has prayed for rejection of the petition.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. From the perusal of the record, it is seen that with respect to the acquisition proceedings the final award was passed in the matter and as the amount of award is on lower side then an application under section 18 was preferred and the matter was referred to the District Judge in reference. The reference case was registered and the same has been dismissed by the impugned order observing as under : –

6. Counsel appearing for the State and the respondent No. 2 has further pointed out that the order impugned does not only reflect that it is dismissed for want of prosecution rather the objection filed by the petitioner was also taken into consideration and not found to be satisfactory, therefore, the reference was rejected, but the fact remains that the order impugned does not reflect any application of mind by the Authorities. There is no consideration of any objection filed by the petitioner. No reasons are assigned while rejecting the reference. The reasons are the heart beats of the orders or judgments as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kranti Associates Private Limited and anr. vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and others, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496 wherein the Hon’