RAM PIARI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Lands covered by award No. 1956 dated 21st March, 1967, were acquired by the Delhi Administration for a public purpose, viz., planned development of Delhi at public expense. One Smt. Surjo along with others claiming to be persons interested in respect of their lands acquired feeling aggrieved by the award filed reference petition under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (herein to be called 'the Act') before the Land Acquisition Collector (herein to be called 'the Collector') requiring him to refer the matter for the determination of the Court. During the pendency of the reference petition in the Court of an Additional District Judge, Delhi, (Shri G. R. Luthra), Smt. Surjo died. An application was filed in the Court on 12th October, 1971, requesting that her daughters, namely, Smt. Ram Piari, Smt. Bhagwati, Smt. Champa and Smt. Ratna in whose favour Smt. Surjo was stated to have made a will be brought on the record. As per averment in the said application Smt. Surjo died on 8th April, 1971. The respondents. Union of India, opposed the application alleging that the same was barred by limitation and that the reference petition in respect of the claim of Smt. Surjo had abated according to the provisions of Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (herein to be called 'the Code'). The learned Additional District Judge accepted the twin contentions noted above and by his impugned order dated 4th May, 1972, holding that the application was barred by time and that reference petition in respect of the claim filed by Smt. Surjo had abated, dismissed her claim with a direction that her name be deleted from the reference petition. The legal representatives of the deceased, Smt. Surjo, feeling aggrieved by the above-said order challenge the correctness of the same in Civil Revision No. 271 of 1972 which came up for hearing before one of us (V. S. Deshpande, J.). The learned Single Judge noticing conflict of judicial decisions on the applicability of the provisions of Order XXII of the Code and that of the Limitation Act to the proceedings under section 18 of the Act before the Court directed that the Civil Revision, petition be placed before the Chief Justice for the constitution of a Full Bench for its decision. This is how the Civil Revision petition No. 271 of 1972 has come up before us.

(2.) In Civil Revision petition No. 451 of 1972 respondent Budhan feeling aggrieved by the award made in respect of his land acquired in pursuance of the proceedings taken under the Act filed a reference A application under section 18 of the Act. The said application was pending in the Court of an Additional District Judge, Delhi, (Shri J. D. Jain) who dismissed the same in default on 27th March, 1968. The claimant after the lapse of four years on 3rd May, 1972, moved an application under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code for restoration of the said application. The learned Additional District Judge restored the application in view of the decision of P. S. Safeer, J. in Civil Revision No. 367 of 1971, Himmat and othere v. Union of India, decided on 7th March, 1972,(l) holding that "A careful scrutiny of the provisions starting with section 18 and ending with section 26 of the Act leads to a conclusion that once the reference is made under section 18 of the Act to the Court, the Court is bound in law to dispose it of. The reference is not to be dismissed in default of the applicant, on whose application the reference may have been made by the Collector, fails to appear".

(3.) Since a common question of law, namely, applicability of the provisions of Order XXII and Order 9 of the Code and that of the Limitation Act, 1963, arises in these two revision petitions it would be appropriate to dispose them of by a single judgment.