SARTI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order of mine shall dispose of two Civil Revision Nos. 3199 of 1989 and 3200 of 1989. The order is dictated in Civil Revision No. 3199 of 1989 titled as Surti and another V. State of Haryana. On 11.1.1969 the State of Haryana acquired some agricultural land situated in the revenue estate of Jind. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') was published to that effect in the Gazette on 18.11.1969. The Land Acquisition Collector gave his award against the petitioners and other land - holders who filed a reference application under Section 18 of the Act. The claimants included brothers and sisters of the petitioner as well. The District Judge enhanced the compensation to Rs. 11,500/- per acre but the reference application of the petitioner was dismissed by him on 9.4.1975 in default for nonappearance of the counsel of the petitioner or the petitioners themselves.

(2.) Thereafter some other claimants/land-holders filed appeal in this Court (Regular First Appeal No. 1743 of 1978) in which the compensation was further enhanced. After the decision of the Regular First Appeal, the petitioners moved an application under Section 28A of the Act in the light of Land Acquisition Act (Amending Act 64 of 1984). Since their application was not decided for quite sometime they then filed Civil Writ Petition No. 8974 of 1987 in this Court. Defence taken by the State in the written statement filed to the writ petition was that reference of the petitioner under Section 18 of the Act had been dismissed in default on 9.4.1975 and therefore the application Under Section 28-A of the Act was not maintainable. As according to Section 28-A of the Act only those persons can claim enhanced compensation -under Section under Section 28-A who did not file the reference application under Section 18. The writ petition was thus dismissed being not maintainable by this Court. The petitioners thereafter claiming the knowledge of the dismissal of their reference application from the written statement filed by the State on 11.2.1988 in the writ petition filed an application in the Court of District Judge on 18.2.1988 i.e. after about 13 years of the dismissal of the application in default for setting aside/recalling the order of dismissal in default. Notice was issued to the State of Haryana in the said application and following issues were framed :

(3.) It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that reference application under Section 18 of the Act could not be dismissed in default and in support of this argument he has cited Kamla Devi V. State of Haryana, 1986 RRR 133; Gurbax Singh and others V. State of Punjab, 1988 1 RRR 54 and Suraj Bhan V. State of Haryana,1988 2 RLR 444. This proposition of law cannot be disputed in view of the law laid down by this Court in the above noted three judgments. But in this case, a finding has been recorded by the Additional District Judge that the present reference application was filed after 13 years of the original dismissal of the reference application whereas the limitation for filing an application for restoration as per the law laid down in Baldev Singh and others V. State of Punjab and others,1982 PunLR 124 is only three years. A further finding has been recorded by the Additional District Judge that the petitioner had knowledge all along regarding the filing of reference under Section 18 of the Act and the case put up by the petitioner that they came to know about the dismissal of their reference in default on 18.2.1988 is an afterthought. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that since the order of dismissal of the reference in default was without jurisdiction the question of limitation would not arise as the order is void ab intio. However, he was unable to cite any-authority -in support of this view whereas the judgment of this Court reported as Baldev Singh's case says that Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 would come into play and limitation for getting such references restored would be three years. In view of this, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted and it is held that the application for restoration of the reference before the District Judge was barred by limitation as it was filed after 13 years-.