SURAJ BHAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of Civil Revisions Nos. 2414, 2415, 2416 and 2417 of 1980, as they arise out of the same order of the learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, dated 28th July, 1980, dismissing the application of the petitioner for the restoration of his claim petition filed under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the Act), which was dismissed in default of his non -appearance on 17th May, 1979.

(2.) IN brief, the facts relevant for the disposal of this petition are that all the claimants filed reference under section 18 of the Act before the District Judge, Karnal. On 7th September, 1977, all these references were adjourned sine die by the District Judge, Karnal, due to heavy work. Thereafter, on the creation of a Civil District and Session Division at Kurukshetra, all these references were transferred to the Court of the District Judge, Kurukshetra. Notices were issued to the petitioner and his counsel for 17th February, 1979, on which date only the Government Pleader put in appearance. Notices were again given to the claimants and their counsel for 7th March, 1979 when Mr. S.K. Sahnj appeared as proxy for Mr. C.L. Malhotra who had been appearing for the claimants at Karnal. Thereafter, the references were adjourned to different dates in the presence of Mr. C.L. Malhotra or his proxy. Ultimately, no body appeared on behalf of the petitioner, which resulted in the dismissal of the reference in default. The petitioner along with the claimants filed applications for restoration on 7th November, 1979, contending that they had learnt from their counsel about the dismissal of their claim applications a day earlier. It was further contended that their counsel. Mr. C.L. Malhotra, Advocate, practising at Karnal informed them that they would receive the summonses from the Court, but no such summonses were received by them. This application was resisted by the State, contending that their counsel had put in appearance on their behalf before the Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Mr. K.K. Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Haryana, conceded that this case is fully covered by the decision of this Court in Smt. Kamla Devi v. State of Haryana, (1986 -1) 89 P.L.R. 692, to the effect that a reference under section 18 of the Act cannot be dismissed in default and the Court has to give findings whether the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector in its award was adequate.