UNION OF INDIA Vs. SANWALIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of six revisions. Nos. 462, 463, 432, 486, 487 and 583 all of 1974. The petitioner in all these cases are the Union of India. They arise out of different proceedings, which are of the same nature, viz. trial of the references under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. They have raised a common question of law and can be conveniently disposed of by this judgment. All these cases are the union of India. They arise aut of different proceedprovisions or Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Article 120 of the Limitation Act apply to the procedings pending before the District Court in references made under section 18 of the Land Acquisi- tion Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). A connected question which has been raised in other cases, is, whether a reference under the Act pending before the District Court can be dismissed in default of appearance in accordance with the provisions of Rule 3 or Rule 8 of Order 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure and thereafter whether or not it can be restored in acordance with the provisions of Order 9 Rules 4 and 9 of the Code.

(2.) This matter has received consideration in judicial authorities. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Abdal Karim v. State of Mudhya Pradesh, AIR 1964 M. P. 171 came to the conclusion that the proceedings under the Act are not governed either by the Code of Civil Procedure or the Limitation Act, so neither of these provisions applies to such proceedings. A contrary view was, however, taken by the High Court of Gujarat in Alihussain Abbasbhai v. Collector, Ranch Mahals AIR 1967 Gujarat 118, wherein P. N. Bhagwati J. (as he then was) observed that the proceedings before the District Court under the Act are in the nature of civil proceedings and the provisions of the Code of Civil procedure apply to it. The learned Judge has, however, found that the provisions of Limitation Act do not apply and there is no limitation prescribed for moving an application under Order 22 of the Code in proceedings under the Act. This authority has also applied the provisions of order 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the proceedings.

(3.) Our High Court had to consider the applicability of provisions of Order 22 of the Code in relation to civil revisions and writ petitions. In Jhabbu Mal v. Sari Kishan Dutt Sharma, (1969) 71 PRLD 41 T. D. Dua J. held that Order 22 of the Code in terms does not apply to Civil Revisions and the provisions of Limitation Act prescribing limitation for moving application for substitution does not apply lo revisions. In respect of Writ Petitions, this court (Hardy J.) held in Ram Kishore Rasfogi v. The Appellate Officer, Jaisalmer House, ILR (1969) Delhi 989 that the law of abatement as envisaged in rule 5(3) of Order 22 of the Code of Civil procedure does not apply in all its rigidity to the writ proceedings and even when we assume that the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution were of a civil nature and would be governed by the provisions of section 141 of the Code in so far as may be applicable, it was not enough to attract the provisions of Limitation Act for applications for substitution. A Division Bench of this Court (S. N. Andley and S. N. Shankar JJ). in Ram Kishore v. Union of India, CW 1118 of 1970, decided on 24th July, 1973, held that the Code of Civil Procedure does apply to writ petitions. After careful consideration, I am in respectful agreemnt with the view of the High Court of Gujarat expressed in Alihussain Abbasbhai v. Collector Panch Mahals AIR 1967 Gujarat 118, and I find myself unable, with great respect, to agree with the view of High Court of Madhya Pradesh expressed in Adul Karim's case. In my opinion, section 53 of the Land Acquisition Act has in terms applied the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to all proceedings before the court under the Act, save in so far as they be inconsistent with anything contained in the Act. The court has been defined by clause (d) of section 3 as principal civil court of Original jurisdiction. This is a regularly constitutedcourt and so it will in my opinion, follow the established rules and procedure prescribed for matters coming up before it. Order 22 and Order 9 of the Code are, therefore, clearly attracted to the proceedings before the court on a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. There is nothing in the provisions of the Act which be inconsistent with the aforesaid provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure.