CHINTAMANI BEHERA Vs. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision arises out of the order dated 24.12.1996 in Misc. Case No. 126 of 1995 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar rejecting the application of the petitioners filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) LAND Acquisition Misc. Case No. 68 of 1989 pending in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar was posted to 20.4.1992 for hearing in which the present petitioners are also petitioners. On the said date the petitioners failed to appear in Court as they did not receive any intimation through the clerk of their Advocate. Later on 13.3.1995 they come to know that the case was closed on 20.4.1992 and filed application under Section 141 of the C.P.C. for restoration of the case. No objection was filed on behalf of the opposite party. The learned Civil Judge rejected the application stating that the Land Acquisition Misc. Case has not been dismissed for default but an order was passed confirming the award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector and therefore, an appeal lies against the said order and accordingly declined to interfere and rejected the petition.

(3.) AS it appears from the.impugned order dated 20.4.1992 in absence of the petitioners the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar passed the following order. 'The award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector stands. The reference is answered accordingly.' This order has been passed not only in absence of the petitioners but also in absence of any other material on record. In the decision referred to above, this Court has observed that a person whose land was being acquired is entitled to compensationtherefore, and this entitlement should not be denied except on very compelling reasons. To deprive a person from his due entitlement on a technical plea would be a negation of the rule of law. Here is a case where the petitioners had sought for a reference under Section 18 of the Act for higher compensation on the ground that their land had been acquired by the State. By the impugned order they have been deprived of the compensation they are entitled to or claimed by them. In my view, the trial Court should not have been so technical to observe that the appeal lies against the award and should have exercised inherent powers under Section 151 of C.P.C.