Prem Chand Pandit, J. - (1.) THIS order will dispose of seven First Appeals from Orders Nos. 92, 93, 98, 99, 100, 101 and 102 of 1961, since common questions of fact and law are involved therein.
(2.) ALL these appeals arise out of the orders of the Additional Senior Subordinate Judge, Nangal, passed in applications made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It appears that certain lands had been acquired by the State Government for the construction of the Fertilizer -cum -Heavy Water Factory at Nangal Township in Hoshiarpur District. Compensation had been awarded by the Collector. Being dissatisfied with his award, applications under Section 18 of the Act had been made by the owners for referring the matter to the Court for the enhancement of the compensation. The learned Judge ordered that the references in question had abated, because the persons whose lands had been acquired had died during the pendency of the references and their legal representatives had not been brought on the record within 90 days as provided for in Order 22, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code). Two of these cases (F.A.Os. Nos. 92 and 93 of 1961) were, in the first instance, placed before Mahajan, J. The learned Judge was of the opinion that an important question of law, namely, whether the provisions under Order 22 of the Code apply to proceedings under Section 18 of the Act or not and the applications made under this Order were within time, was involved in these cases. This question being of: general importance, he referred the cases to a Division Bench. The other five appeals came up for hearing before Gurdev Singh, J., and since similar points were involved therein, he directed that those cases be also heard along with F.A.O. 92 of 1961. That is why all these appeals have been placed before us. The first question for decision is whether the provisions of Order 22, Rule 3 of the Code apply to these cases. The argument of the learned Counsel for the Appellants was that these provisions applied only to suits and not to references under Section 18 of the Act. He also contended that the provisions contained in Order 22 of the Code were inconsistent with the provisions of Section 20, 21, 23 and 26 of the Act, under which, after a valid reference had been made to the Court, it was its duty to give an award and, therefore, no question of abatement arose in such cases.
(3.) SECTION 53 of the Act is as follows: Save in so far as they may be inconsistent with anything contained in this Act, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure shall apply to all proceedings before the Court under this Act. According to it, the provisions of the Code would apply to all the proceedings before the Court under this Act. It is pertinent to mention that, amongst others, the provisions of the Code as to death, marriage and bankruptcy or insolvency of parties, which are the same as given in Order 22 of the Code, were specially made applicable under Section 36 of the old Act, which section has now been replaced by Section 53 of the present Act, under which the provisions of the entire Code have been applied to all the proceedings before the Court. This means that the scope of the present section has been enlarged by the application of the provisions of the entire Code to these proceedings. It follows, therefore, that the provisions of Order 22, Rule 3 would apply, unless it could be shown that they were inconsistent with anything contained in the Act. There is no specific provision in this Act, which says that the principles of abatement would not apply to the proceedings before the Court under the Act. The argument of the learned Counsel is that under the provisions of Sections 20, 21, 23 and 26 of the Act, the Court was bound to give an award and as such, the provisions of Order 22 of the Code could not be applied to these proceedings. There is no force in this submission, because under Section 21 of the Act, the scope of the enquiry has been restricted to a consideration of the interests of the persons affected by the objections filed under Section 18 of the Act against the award given by the Collector. The objectors are not satisfied with the award given by the Collector and they object either to the measurement of the land, or the amount of the compensation, or the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation amongst the persons interested. Therefore, by virtue of the provisions of Section 18 of the Act, they apply to the Collector for making a reference to the Court for the determination of their objections. It is, therefore, incumbent on them or their legal representatives to pursue their claims as provided under the Act. The reference will be answered and the award would be given by the Court after they lead evidence in support of their objections and their cases are heard. For this purpose, certain procedure has been prescribed under the Act. Section 53 of the Act makes the provision of the Code applicable to these proceedings. It means that the procedure laid down in the Code has to be observed by the Court while deciding these objections. Order 22 of the Code clearly lays down that the legal representatives of the deceased must be brought on the record within the time limited by law. In case, it is not done so, the result would be that the reference would abate. In such a contingency, it cannot be argued that, when a reference has abated, it must be answered by the Court. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the provisions of Order 22 of the Code are inconsistent with those of Sections 20, 21, 23 and 26 of the Act. The result would be that the award given by the Collector would stand and the parties would be bound by the same.;