MOHD. SAKHAWAT NOOR Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of the parties, the matter is finally heard.

(2.) It is submitted that the petitioner was the owner of the land in question and his land has been acquired for the construction of Dam for public purpose of Indira Sagar Project. A notification under Sec. 4 of the Act was issued and the objections were called under Sec. 6 (3) of the Act of 1894. The petitioner filed his objection but the same was not considered. All the proceedings were completed and the award was passed and thereafter a notice for intimation of the Award under Sec. 12 of the Act of 1894 was issued to the land owners whose lands were acquired for construction of the dam. As the amount of award was on a very lower side and was not in accordance with the guidelines, therefore, the petitioner preferred an application under Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, which was referred as reference before the Court below for proper consideration of the Award. The reference case was registered as Reference Case No.282/2005. The learned Trial Court has dismissed the case for want of prosecution on 20/9/2006 and the reason is given that the applicant is not producing evidence in the case. It is submitted that similar issues came up before this Court for consideration and the orders have been passed, considering the settled legal proposition in the case of Khazan Singh (Dead) By Lrs. Vs. Union of India reported in (2002) 2 SCC 242 wherein it is categorically held that the reference is required to be answered and the same cannot be dismissed in default. This Court has also considered the aforesaid judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and has passed various orders in the case of W.P.No.758/15 (Nageenchand Vs. Land Acquisitionl and Rehabilitation Officers and others) and W.P.No.763/15 (Ishrat Bee Vs. Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation Officers and others). The petitioner is praying for a similar relief which has been extended by the aforesaid cases.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that the order impugned has been passed in the year 2006 and the present petition has been filed in the year 2019 without there being any proper explanation for the delay. It is submitted that the judgment passed by the Khazan Singh (supra) is of no help to the petitioner as he has not approached this Court within time. He has prayed for rejection of the petition.