J.V. Gupta, J. - (1.) Certain land was acquired in village Budhanpur, Tehsil Kalka, District Ambala by the State of Haryana through the Land Acquisition Collector, Panchkula. Ved Parkash was one of the claimants. The award was announced on 26 -6 -1974. Ved Parkash filed a reference under Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The said reference remained pending before the Addl District Judge, Ambala. Vide order dated 28 -1 -1976, the case was adjourned sine -die in view of the instructions of the High Court. However, the same was restored vide order dated 18 -8 -1977. The said order reads as under: Present: None. In the month of December, 1975 the case was taken up by the Addl. District Judge, Ambala on his own file and adjourned sine -die by means of a general order. On my transfer to this place, the case has been again transferred to me. Court notice be issued to the counsel for the claimant and Government pleader for 21 -9 -1977. On 21 -9 -1977, the Presiding Officer was on tour and the case was adjourned to 22 -9 -1977 for proper orders. On 22 -9 -1977, it was directed that fresh notice be issued to the parties without process fee for 25 -10 -1977. No notices were issued for that date and therefore, on 25 -10 -1977 the case was adjourned for 15 -12 -1977 with the direction that the notice be sent to the counsel for the claimant. On 15 -12 -1977, the following orders were passed: Present: None. Shri Ram Sarup Sharma, Advocate for the claimant has been personally served but none is present on his behalf. In the absence of the claimant or his counsel this petition cannot proceed It is not known on the basis of what evidence the claimant wanted enhanced compensation. The claim petition is, therefore, dismissed in default. File be consigned to the Record Room. Announced. Dt/ - 15 -12 -1977 Sd/ - Addl. District Judge, Ambala. It appears that either Shri Ram Sarup Sharma, Advocate counsel for the claimant was never served or if he was served, he never informed his client Shri Ved Parkash that the reference has been restored. Ved Parkash died on 30 -5 -1981. He had executed a will dated 28 -5 -1981 in favour of his wife Smt. Kamla Devi. Norang Singh who was the neighbour of Ved Parkash deceased and whose land was situated adjoining the land of Ved Parkash, informed Smt. Kamla Devi Petitioner that the reference claimed by her husband Ved Parkash was pending. When Smt. Kamla Devi came to know for the first time, she immediately moved the application after engaging Shri Ram Sarup Sharma, Advocate who was the counsel of her deceased husband Ved Parkash. The said application is dated 19 9 -1981. Surprisingly enough, in the said application the date of the order dismissing the reference in default is mentioned to be 14 -3 -1978 whereas the reference application was dismissed in default vide order dated 15 -12 -1977 as reproduced above. As observed earlier the said application was filed by Shri Ram Sarup Sharma, Advocate himself, who was the counsel and he himself did not know the exact date of dismissal in default, and thus it makes it clear that not only that he did not know the date of dismissal in default but he never informed his client Shri Ved Parkash, deceased of that order. However, it was mentioned in the said application that after the death of Shri Ved Parkash the Petitioner enquired from the office of the Land Acquisition Collector and she came to know that the case was referred and has been dismissed in default. According to the Plaintiff, she came to know about the fact of dismissal on 15 -9 -1981 when she enquired from the office of the Land Acquisition Collector about the pending cases of Ved Parkash. This application was contested on behalf of the Respondent -State on the plea that Ved Parkash had died on 30 -5 -1981 and therefore, the reference had abated and the Petitioner is not entitled to file the present application nor the present application is maintainable. The Petitioner in support of the allegations made in the application examined herself as PW -1 and also produced Norang Singh, PW -2. No evidence was led in rebuttal on behalf of the State. The learned Addl. District Judge came to the conclusion that Kamla Devi had no right to ask for the restoration of the said petition under Sec. 18 after more than 31/2 years after its dismissal in default. Dissatisfied with the same, she had filed this petition in this Court.
(2.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that as a matter of fact, reference under Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act could not be dismissed in default and the order dated 15 -12 -1977 dismissing the same was without jurisdiction and was thus liable to be set aside in exercise of the inherent powers. In support of this contention reference was made to the D. B. judgment of the Patna High Court reported as Shyam Shankar Sahai v/s. State of Bihar, 1974 B. L. J. R. 162. It was next contended that her application dated 19 -9 -1981 was within time from the date of knowledge. According to her she acquired the knowledge for the first time on 15 -9 -1981 when she enquired from the office of the Land Acquisition Collector about the pending cases of her husband Shri Ved Parkash. According to the learned Counsel, in the absence of any rebuttal to the evidence led by the Petitioner, the same was to be accepted by the learned Addl. District Judge. In support of this contention he referred to Panna Lal v/s. Murari Lal, 1967 S. C. 1384. Argument was also raised that in any case there is nothing on the record to show that Shri Ram Sarup Sharma, Advocate was ever served with the notice after the case was restored having been adjourned sine -die and in any case the Petitioner should not suffer for the negligence of the counsel, if any.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the Respondent -State submitted that the application was barred by time and there was no sufficient ground to restore the same.;