LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR Vs. PREM LAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent No. 1, Shri Prem Lal (one of the petitioner in the trial Court) in the main appeal has expired on 6.10.2013 i.e. during the pendency of the reference petition in the trial Court. The factum of his death was neither brought to the notice of the trial Court either by the surviving petitioners or legal representatives of the said respondent nor any steps for his substitution taken. To the contrary, the reference petition filed by said Sh. Prem Lal and his brothers S/Sh. Kishori Lal and Daulat Ram came to be decided along with batch of petitions vide award dated 12.11.2013, under challenge in the present appeal, without taking notice of his death and substitution of his legal representatives.

(2.) The question for adjudication as arisen in these applications is as to what is the impact of death of deceased respondent Prem Lal and non-substitution of his legal representatives in these proceedings. The law in this regard is no more res-integra as this Court in Collector Land Acquisition NHPC v. Khewa Ram and others, Latest HLJ 2007 (HP) 270, after taking into consideration the provisions contained under the Land Acquisition Act and also under Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has held that a reference petition under Section 18 has to be answered by the Court and in case the claimant does not appear despite notice, he do so at his own risk. In the event of the sole claimant died during the course of proceedings and the Court unaware of his death answered the reference on the basis of the material available on record, in an appeal either filed by his legal representatives or the acquiring authority, the award has to be set aside and the proceedings deem to have been abated, of course subject to the consideration of the question of setting aside the abatement on condonation of delay, however, only by the reference Court and not by the appellate Court. In a case where there are more claimants or where more than one petition (a batch of petitions) decided by a common award, death of one of the claimants during the course of proceedings do not render the award passed on common evidence led by all the parties a nullity and the legal representatives can even be brought on record during the pendency of the appeal also. The relevant portion of the judgment supra reads as follows:

(3.) The present is a case which is covered by (b) and (c) of para 13 of the judgment supra, as Prem Lal was not the only petitioner in the reference petition but his brother S/Sh. Kishori Lal and Daulat Ram being co-owners of the acquired land were also the petitioners with him. Above all, the reference petition, they preferred has been decided by a common award passed in a batch of petitions on the basis of common evidence available on record. Therefore, irrespective of the death of deceased respondent Prem Lal during the course of the proceedings in the reference petition in the trial Court, the question of abatement of the appeal and substitution of his legal representative can be gone into by this Court in the present appeal. Since his brothers, petitioners No. 2 and 3 were there on record to represent the estate of the deceased petitioner-respondent and to pursue the petition, therefore, the question of abatement does not arise. The proposed LRs of deceased respondent Prem Lal named in para 5 of the application [CMP(M) No. 1022 of 2014] are otherwise also required to be brought on record being entitled to receive the compensation in respect of the acquired land to the extent of their share and also to straighten the record.