KUNDAN LAL AND OTHERS Vs. DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER-CUM-LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR SECRETARY AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LAND owners, who are petitioners before the reference Court in reference under Section 18 and Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, have filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 09.05.2013 (Annexure P -1) passed by the reference Court (Additional District Judge), thereby closing evidence of petitioners by Court order. I have heard counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioners contended that matter pertaining to the same land was pending in Hon'ble Supreme Court and, therefore, counsel for the petitioners in the reference Court advised that no proceedings in the case will take place because the matter was subjudice before Hon'ble Supreme Court and the petitioners shall get notice regarding date of hearing to be fixed by the reference Court after decision by Hon'ble Supreme Court and, therefore, petitioners were not aware of the proceedings going on before the reference Court. Accordingly, it was prayed that another opportunity may be granted to the petitioners for their evidence.

(3.) THE plea that some matter relating to the same land was pending in Hon'ble Supreme Court, does not carry any weight because there was no order either by Hon'ble Supreme Court or by the reference Court to stay or adjourn sine die the reference pending in the reference Court. Moreover, it has been mentioned in the revision petition that special leave petition was disposed of by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 04.05.2012 vide order Annexure P -3 (wrongly mentioned as Annexure P -2 in paragraph 5 of the revision petition). Evidence of the petitioners was closed more than one year thereafter vide order dated 09.05.2013. During this period of one year also, at least six opportunities were granted to the petitioners for their evidence. It cannot be accepted that even after decision of the matter by Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioners did not contact their counsel for more than one year to know the fate or status of the reference pending before the reference Court. Thus examined from any angle, no further opportunity is required to be granted to the petitioners for their evidence.