PIARA LAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application Under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for issuance of a direction to the effect that RFA No. 199 of 1982 be treated to have been filed qua both the land references for payment of enhanced amount of compensation to the applicants. Admittedly, the applicants land measuring 53 Bighas 19 Biswas was acquired which was comprised in two 'khatas'. Two land references No. 210 of 1980 and 112 of 1980 pertaining to 29 Bighas 2 Biswas and 24 Bighas 17 Biswas respectively, were subject matter of decision of the Land Acquisition Court. Both the land references were decided by a common award by the Additional District Judge Patiala. The applicants instead of filing two appeals, filed one joint appeal, but in the appeal the numbers of both the land references were mentioned. It has been argued before me that full court fee was paid in the appeal for claiming enhanced amount of compensation for the entire acquired land. The Registry did not notice that one appeal was filed for two references. R. F. A. No. 199 of 1982 was disposed of by this Court. At the stage of execution, it has come to light that two appeals should have been filed.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and this Court is of the considered view that the application deserves to be allowed. There is no doubt that a mistake has been committed either by the applicants or by the counsel in not filing two appeals. However, the mistake cannot be intentional because admittedly full Court fee was paid. Moreover, even the Registry passed the appeal and did not a raise any objection. Had any objection been raised by the Registry, the applicants would have filed another appeal and both the appeals would have been decided together. In other words, it can safely be observed that an error committed by the applicants regarding which they should have been vigilant has not been noticed by the officials of the Court and, therefore to some extent the Registry is also responsible. In such circumstances, the litiganl must be restored to the position which he would have otherwise occupied but for the error committed by the litigant which has gone unnoticed by the officials of the Court.