K RANGAPPA Vs. SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR LA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These revisions are before us on a reference by the learned single Judge on the question as to whether the provisions of Order 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the "Code") are applicable to the reference made to the Civil Court in proceedings under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short the "Act").

(2.) Bereft of the details, the facts are that the lands of all the petitioners were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act and as against the awards passed by the Land Acquisition Collector reference applications were made to the Court. However since the reference applications were not pursued by the petitioners, they were dismissed for non-prosecution. Applications for restoration of the reference applications, styled as being under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code, were filed after lapse of 13 years, 6 months and 20 days. The learned Subordinate Judge, Proddatur dismissed the applications for the laches of delay, as against which these Civil Revision Petitions were preferred before the learned single Judge. A submission was advanced on behalf of the petitioners that the learned Subordinate Judge has no jurisdiction to dismiss the reference applications for non-prosecution and that he was to have answered the reference applications in some manner. It was argued that Order 9 Rule 8 of the Code had no application to such reference proceedings. Reliance was placed by the petitioners on a decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in K. Malliah vs. Land Acquisition Officer. The move was contested by the Government Pleader for Land Acquisition contending Order 9 Rule 8 of the Code to be applicable. Learned single Judge on a discussion on the subject and referring to various decisions took the view of the decision in K. Malliah vs, Land Acquisition Officer requiring a reconsideration and has referred the matter to the Division Bench of this Court.

(3.) In view of the stand taken by both the parties, we put it to the Government Pleader for Land Acquisition at the commencement of the case that if it was the concession on his part that Order 9 Rule 8 of the Code authorised the Subordinate Judge to dismiss the reference applications for non-prosecution, obviously the application under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code would lie to set aside the order passed under Order 9 Rule 8 of the Code. The fact that the applications were styled as being under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code was obviously a mistake but as the application for restoration, if such application lies, was to have made under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code, the Court would be right to treat the applications as having been made under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code only. The learned Government Pleader fairly concedes before us that in view of Section 53 of the Act, Order 9 Rule 8 of the Code is applicable also to reference proceedings and hence the applications could be dismissed for non-appearance of the petitioners and also concedes that because of such fact, applications under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code would also lie to set aside the dismissal orders. It is however his contention that even though the applications for restoration may be maintainable, yet on merits there could be no bona fide reason for the petitioners to approach the Court after the delay of 13 years, 6 months and 20 days.