COLLECTOR MANDI Vs. SOM KRISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The land of the petitioner situate in Mohal Bhojpur District mandi was acquired under the provisions of the land Acquisition Act. Som Krishan respondent dissatisfied with the award made a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act before the District Judge who enhanced the amount of compensation by Rs. I, ll.:.12paise. The Collector filed an appeal which was heard by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner. The appeal was accepted on February 22, 1965, and the case was remanded to the District Judge. Respondent Som Krishan was also allowed an opportunity to adduce evidence provided he paid Rs 75 as costs. It is the case of the collector that Som Krishan respondent directed to appear before the learned Distsict Judge on March 25, 1965, and also to pay costs on that date. On March 25, 1965 the respondent did not appear but his counsel Shri Vidya Sagar who was present in Court made a statement that he had no instruction in the matter. The Court ordered that since costs had not been paid, the reference be dismissed.

(2.) On March 26, 1965, the respondent Som Krishan made an application for restoration of the reference It was alleged in the application that the learned additional Judicial Commissioner had directed the parties to appear on March 26, 1965, but the case was by mistake taken up on March 25, 1963, and consequently on that day the respondent could not appear or pay the costs. In support of his plea the respondent relied on a notice Ex. AW1/A issued by the Court of the District Judge askinghe respondent to appear on March 26, 1965. The original of the notice sent to the petitioner and returned to the District Judge was not available and the learned District Judge observed:-'This confusion had cropped up only on account of the fact that the original notice had been misplaced or being withheld or by whom is difficult to be said with cerfainty. But respondibility can be cast on the Ahlrnad. It is for this reason that a misunderstanding was created in the mind of the petitioner (Som Krishan) regarding the date." In the copy of the notice Ex.A.W. I/A the figure 2 is written in pencil but 6 in the ink and the learned Disttlct Judge was of the opinion that:-"On this notice there is also interpolation about the date. The figure of 2 is in pencil while the figure of 6 if in ink. It is not known who made this figure of 6." The learned District Judge also held that the date for which the petitioner was to be served is 26th March, 1965 in the Civil Nazarat registers at Mandi as well as at Sundernagar." After taking evidence the learned District Judge by his order dated April 18, 1956 decided that there was sufficient cause for non-appearance of Som-Kishanon March 25, 1965, and directed thsrcstoratiJi-i of the reference under Order 9, Rule 9, Civil Procedure Code.

(3.) Aggrieved by the decision of the District Judge the Collector has now come up in revision under section 33 of the Himachal Pradesh (Courts' Order, 1948. Under the said section the Court has power to rectify errors of jurisdiction and further consider important questions of law or custom involved in the case. The decision of the learned District Judge as to the existence of the sufficient cause, based as it is on evidence, does not raise any question of jurisdiction or question of law, muchless important question of law, within the meaning of section 35 of the Himachal Pradesh (Courts) Order, 1918.