ABDUL KARIM S/O ABDUL HAKIM Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Letters Patent appeal from a decision of Shiv Dayal, J. in an appeal arising out of reference proceedings under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), initiated at the instance of one Abdul hakim whose land had been acquired along with certain lands belonging to other persons. After the making of the reference by the Collector of Bilaspur and during its pendency Abdul Hakim died on 26th July 1960. On 22nd February 1961 his sons, Abdul Karim and Abdul Majid, applied for being brought on record. This application was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, holding that it was barred by time and the application not having been filed within 90 days of the date of death of Abdul Hakim as required by Article 176 of the Limitation Act, the proceedings abated. Abdul Karim and Abdul Majid then filed. another application on 12th March 1962 for setting aside the abatement oi the proceedings together with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of the delay in the filing of the application for setting aside the abatement. This application was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on the ground of limitation. By his decision the learned Single Judge upheld the order of the Additional District Judge, Bilaspur. refusing to set aside the abatement. It is against this decision that the present appeal is directed.

(2.) THE learned Single Judge took the view that by virtue of Section 53 of the Act the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure applied to reference proceedings under Section 18; that as in the Act there was no provision excluding the applicability of Order. 22 to proceedings under Section 18, that Order would also apply; that as the Code of Civil Procedure was made applicable to proceedings under Section 18 the claimant for compensation must be deemed to be a plaintiff; and that, therefore, an application for bringing the legal representatives of a deceased claimant on record in proceedings under Section 18 would be governed by Article 176 of the Limitation Act and the limitation for setting aside an abatement would also be governed by Article 171. On this view and finding that the applications made by Abdul Karim and Abdul Majid were barred by time and there was no sufficient ground for condoning the delay and for setting aside the abatement, the learned Single Judge dismissed the appeal preferred by Abdul karim and Abdul Maiid against the order of the Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, refusing to set aside the abatement.

(3.) IT was argued by Shri Sen, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, that a reference under Section 18 of the Act could not abate in law, or end in its dismissal, and once a reference was made, decision with regard to each of the referred matters bad to be given by the Court to which the reference was made; that Section 53 of the Act made the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure applicable only in so far as they were not inconsistent with "anything contained in the Act;" that having regard to the nature of the proceedings under Section 18 it would be utterly inconsistent to apply to those proceedings Order 22; and that for the purpose of the Limitation Act proceedings under Section 18 of the Act were not proceedings in a suit and a claimant for compensation was not a plaintiff within the meaning of Article 176 of the Limitation Act. It was said that the refusal of the learned Additionat District Judge to make any award under Section 18 in regard to the land belonging to the deceased Abdul Hakim had resulted in a denial of compensation to his heirs.