RUNKU RAM Vs. COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, the Appellant is aggrieved by the f judgment dated Sept. 26, 1979 of the Additional District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, whereby his application under Order 9 Rule 9, Code of Civil Procedure for; restoring his reference application was dismissed.

(2.) Land measuring 13 Kanals 3 Marias of the Appellant was acquired for the construction of Beas Dam and its reservoir as far back as in the year 1971. The Appellant preferred a reference application under Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act which is dated Dec. 2, 1971. From the order sheet of the Additional District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, it transpires that the reference application was received in his Court some time in March, 1975. Though there are number of orders in the file of the Additional District Judge summoning the parties but there is only one summon with the report of the Process-server that the village of the Appellant had submerged in Pong Dam and its residents had shifted and settled at some other place. On the basis of this report, the Additional District Judge passed the order dated July 5, 1976 dismissing the reference application holding that it was the duty of the reference-applicant to have informed the Court of his new address.

(3.) On coming to know about the order dated July 5, 1976, the Appellant filed the application under Order 9 Rule 9, Code of Civil Procedure. The sufficient cause shown was that he did not receive summons in the reference application as he had settled at some other place and was busy in the construction of house etc. No reply was filed by the Respondent-Collector Land Acquisition. On the issues framed by the Additional District Judge, only the statement of the Appellant was recorded. The Respondent did not produce any evidence. The Additional District Judge dismissed the application as time barred and held that there was no sufficient ground to restore the reference application. Hence the present appeal.