KOTTE MALLAIAH Vs. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER UNIT KARIMNAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short and interesting question raised in this revision petition is whether the court to which a reference is made under sec.18 of the Land Acquisition Act I of 1894 (hereinafter called the Act) can dismiss the reference for default of non-appearance of the claimant on the date of enquiry.

(2.) The petitioner in this case is a claimant for compensation in respect of the Land acquired by the State situated in Hasnapur village, Karimnagar district and sought reference under sec. 18 of the Act for higher compensation and the said reference is registered as O P No 302/80 but on the date when the case was posted for enquiry he was absent and hence the same was dismissed on 18-12-1980 for default of appearance of the petitioner. He filed a petition to set aside the default order with a petition to excuse the delay in filing the same. It is averred in the petition that the entire village in which he was residing was sub-merged due to acquisition of land and he had to go to different village with others in search of alternative lands to settle down and he could not be present on the date of the enquiry and he was not aware of the date of enquiry which was fixed on 18-12-1980 and hence the delay in filing the application to condone the delay. No counter was filed by the land acquisition officer who is the respondent in the said application. However the court below under the impugned order dt. 13-7-82 dismissed the same as the delay is not explained satisfactorily and the allegation that he is not aware of the date of hearing is vague and the petitioner failed to explain every day's delay in filing the application to set aside the default order. Against the said order the present revision is filed.

(3.) The learned counsel raised three Questions. 1. The Court to which a reference is made under sec. 18 of the Act cannot dismiss the reference for default as it is bound to determine the question referred to it under the provisions of the Act. 2. The court has already restored 0 Ps 317/60 and the connected 0 Ps which were dismissed for default on the same day and awards were passed giving higher compensation in these cases and it is unjust to deny the claim of the petitioner. 3. He further urged that this court exercised powers under sec. 115 CPC suo moto and restored the 0 P as the order dismissing the 0 P for default is wholly without jurisdiction and also causes miscarriage of justice on the facts and circumstances of the case.