The provisions under Order 9 Rule 13 are applicable to the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, and the ex-parte decree/award dated 26.07.2017 had not attained finality. The appeal under Rule 35 was maintainable, and the date fixed was for appearance and not for hearing. Sufficient cause had been made out to set aside the orders dated 10.09.2018.

JUDGMENT :

1. Since these two appeals concern the same and identical subject matter, they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Heard Mr. S. Sen, learned Sr. GA assisted by Mr. A. Kharwanlang, learned GA for the appellants and Mr. R. Kar, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. MAF No. 1 of 2019 has been preferred under Rule 35 of the Rules for the Administration of Justice & Police in the Garo Hills District, 1937 read with Order 43 Rule 1 and Section 151 of the C.P.C. assailing the Judgment and Order dated 10.09.2018 passed by the Learned Judicial Officer, East Garo Hills, Williamnagar in Misc. Application No. 7 of 2017 in L.A. Case No. 1 of 2014 rejecting the appellants prayer under Order 9 Rule 13 of the C.P.C. praying for setting aside the ex-parte Judgment dated 26.07.2017 passed in L.A. Case No. 1 of 2017.

4. MAF No. 2 of 2019 has also been filed under the same above noted provision assailing the Judgment and Order dated 10.09.2018 passed by the Learned Judicial Officer, East Garo Hills, Williamnagar in Misc. Application No. 5 of 2017 in L.A. Case No. 2 of 2014 praying for setting aside the ex-parte Judgment dated 26.07.2017 passed in L.A. Case No. 2 of 2017.

5. The brief facts leading to these appeals are that during pendency of the reference proceedings under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in L.A. Case No. 1 of 2014 and L.A. Case No. 2 of 2014, Learned Special Judicial Officer, East Garo Hills, Williamnagar referred certain questions of law to this Court which was registered as Civil Reference No. 1 and 2 of 2017. This Court dismissed the References vide order dated 26.05.2017 and while remitting the matter back to the Learned Court below had directed the parties to appear before the Court of the Special Judicial Officer on 28.06.2017.

6. The appellants case is that the order 26.05.2017 was neither communicated to the appellants nor to the Government pleader who was conducting the case before the Learned Court below. As such, when the matter came up before the Learned Court below on the date fixed, the appellants were not present. The Learned trial Court thereafter proceeded to decide the case ex-parte against the appellant and disposed of the matter in the appellants absence resulting in the ex-parte Judgment dated 26.07.2017.

7. Aggrieved thereby the appellants herein, had filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the C.P.C. being Misc. Application No. 7 of 2018 and Misc. Application No. 5 of 2018 before the Learned Court below praying for setting aside the ex-parte Judgment dated 26.07.2017. The said applications were heard and vide order 10.09.2018 the Learned Court below rejected the same. As such, these appeals against the order dated 10.09.2018 are now before this Court.

8. Mr. S. Sen, learned Sr. GA for the appellants submits that the matter concerns the assessment of compensation in respect of acquisition of land by the appellants for the purpose of Indo-Bangla fencing project. He submits that the respondents being dissatisfied with the compensation amount of Rs. 15,000/- per bigha as being wholly inadequate, had put a claim at Rs. 70,000/- per bigha as fixed by the G.H.A.D.C. which according to them was the appropriate rate of compensation. The counter/written statements by the appellants were filed therein before the court below, and that the respondents by referring to certain averments made in the counter statement as admission to the respondents claims filed an application under Order 6 Rule 12 for grant of judgment of admission.

9. It is submitted by the learned counsel that during the course of hearing of the matter, the decision dated 30.09.2016 rendered by this Court in Mody M. Sangma v. G.H.A.D.C came up for discussion, wherein it has been held that the G.H.A.D.C. did not have the legislative competency to prescribe the rates for land compensation. As such, he submits that the Learned Judicial Officer being faced with this situation, then referred the matter to this court under Sec