RAMO Vs. COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION URBAN ESTATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, dated October 13, 1976, whereby the award made by the Land Acquisition Collector was affirmed and the reference under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, (hereinafter called the Act), was rejected.

(2.) THE Land Acquisition Collector gave the award under S. 9 of the Act, for the land acquired which belonged to the petitioners, on June 14, 1972. Reference under S. 18 was made on July 20, 1972. The first appearance of the parties before the learned Additional District, Judge, was on January 9, 1976. However, on June 5, 1976, the date fixed for the evidence, the case was further adjourned to August 11, 1976, for evidence. Meanwhile, on July 17, 1976, the date was changed from August 11, 1976 to October 13, 1976, as the Presiding Officer was not to hold the Court on August 11, 1976. It was stated in the order dated July 17, 1976, that the parties and the counsel be informed of the change of date. On October 13, 1976, no one was present for the claimants petitioners. The learned Additional District Judge found that the Court notices were ordered to be issued to the learned counsel for the parties and that they had been served with the said notices. Shri S. B. Nagar, Advocate, for the petitioners, was served with the Court notice on August 10, 1976 and, therefore, the claimants had ample time to produce the evidence, but none appeared for them for adducing evidence on the issues framed. Instead of dismissing the reference for default of appearance, the learned Additional District Judge proceeded with the case and held that the compensation amount as assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer was fair. Consequently, the reference under S. 18 of the Act, was declined.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners contended that on July 17, 1976, it was directed that the notices be issued to the parties and their counsel. Admittedly no notice was issued to the parties. Only their counsel were informed. The counsel for the claimants did not inform them about the change of the date from August 11, 1976 to October 13, 1976. In any case, argued the learned counsel, at the most, if no one was present on behalf of the petitioners the reference under S. 18 of the Act could be dismissed for default of appearance, but could not be dismissed on merits by holding that the award of the Collector was fair. , In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon A. Abbasbhai v. Collector, Panch Mahals, AIR 1967 Guj 118 and Pullamma v. Addl. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore, Air 1977 Kant 9.