SMT. KAMLA DEVI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Certain land was acquired in village Budhanpur, Tehsil Kalka, District Ambala by the State of Haryana through the Land Acquisition Collector, Panchkula. Ved Parkash was one of the claimants. The award was announced on 26 -6 -1974. Ved Parkash filed a reference under Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The said reference remained pending before the Addl District Judge, Ambala. Vide order dated 28 -1 -1976, the case was adjourned sine -die in view of the instructions of the High Court. However, the same was restored vide order dated 18 -8 -1977. The said order reads as under:

(2.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that as a matter of fact, reference under Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act could not be dismissed in default and the order dated 15 -12 -1977 dismissing the same was without jurisdiction and was thus liable to be set aside in exercise of the inherent powers. In support of this contention reference was made to the D. B. judgment of the Patna High Court reported as Shyam Shankar Sahai v/s. State of Bihar, 1974 B. L. J. R. 162. It was next contended that her application dated 19 -9 -1981 was within time from the date of knowledge. According to her she acquired the knowledge for the first time on 15 -9 -1981 when she enquired from the office of the Land Acquisition Collector about the pending cases of her husband Shri Ved Parkash. According to the learned Counsel, in the absence of any rebuttal to the evidence led by the Petitioner, the same was to be accepted by the learned Addl. District Judge. In support of this contention he referred to Panna Lal v/s. Murari Lal, 1967 S. C. 1384. Argument was also raised that in any case there is nothing on the record to show that Shri Ram Sarup Sharma, Advocate was ever served with the notice after the case was restored having been adjourned sine -die and in any case the Petitioner should not suffer for the negligence of the counsel, if any.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Respondent -State submitted that the application was barred by time and there was no sufficient ground to restore the same.