THAKUR DASS Vs. LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision petition arises out of the order dated 9.5.2002 passed by District Judge, Kinnaur Civil Division at Rampur Bushehar in case No. 46 -R/4 of 2000 whereby the reference made by the Land Acquisition Collector -cum -SDO, Ani respondent No. 1 herein to the civil Court was dismissed in default by the learned District Judge.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts leading to filing of the petition are these:

(3.) It appears that the land of the present petitioner Thakur Dass and his brother Anant Ram Proforma respondent herein was acquired by respondent No. 1 for public purpose i.e. for Union of India through the Secretary (Defence) respondent No. 2 herein. The Land Acquisition Collector made an award on 19.3.1998. The petitioner and proforma respondent being not satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded to them by the Land Acquisition Collector, preferred Reference Application under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which was referred to the learned District Judge by the Land Acquisition Collector. During the proceedings before the learned District Judge, it appears from the record of the Court that the petitioner and proforma respondent could not produce their evidence nor they could examine themselves in support of their claim for enhancement of the amount of compensation. The case was adjourned by the learned District Judge on various occasions as according to the petitioner, he was not well being aged person of about 86 years whereas proforma respondent could not appear due to accident in which he suffered injuries. On 30.7.2001 the petitioner and proforma respondent were allowed adjournment to produce evidence subject to costs of Rs. 250/ - and the case was ordered to be listed on 18.8.2001. The petitioner and proforma respondent had not produced any evidence on 18.8.2001 nor process fee and diet money for the service of the witnesses were filed. From the perusal of the order dated 18.8.2001 of the learned District Judge, it reveals that Mr. Kapil Palsra, Advocate appearing for the claimants declined to represent them and in such circumstances the reference petition was dismissed in default by the court. Thereafter on 24.12.2001 the reference application was restored to file subject to payment of costs of Rs. 2000/ - which was paid by the claimants to the District Attorney on 17.1.2002. When the case was taken up on 20.1.2002, the claimants examined one Mela Ram whereas the other witness, namely, Yog Raj was given -up as unnecessary. One more opportunity to produce their oral and documentary evidence was allowed by the court to the claimants for the next date of hearing i.e. 5.3.2002. On 5.3.2002 Mr. Himesh Thakur, Advocate appearing for the claimants sought adjournment of the case on the ground that petitioner Thakur Dass was unwell having undergone major operation whereas claimant Anant Ram was not present on account of accident of Rampur -Urthu Bus on 4.3.2002. Again on 27.3.2002 the claimants could not appear before the court nor they could produce their evidence and the learned District Judge granted one more opportunity to them to produce their evidence on their own responsibility on 9.4.2002 subject to payment of Rs. 500/ - as costs. Again on 9.5.2002 the claimants did not appear nor any witness was examined by them. The court below concluded that since the claimants have been granted various opportunities to produce their evidence, therefore, no further adjournment was allowed to them nor they paid/deposited the costs of Rs. 500/ - imposed upon them on 27.3.2002 as well as prior to the said date. In the result, the reference petition was ordered to be rejected/dismissed in default.