Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rambilas vs The Land Acquisition Nhdc on 15 March, 2022
Author: Vishal Mishra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 15th OF MARCH, 2022
MISC. PETITION No. 1554 of 2021
Between:-
RAMBILAS S/O LATE SHANKAR OCCUPATION:
LABOUR R/O VILLAGE GULLAS, TEHSIL HARSUD
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI K.K.MISHRA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE LAND ACQUISITION NHDC THROUGH
REHABILITATION OFFICER NHD NHDC NO.6,
INDRA SAGAR/ OMKARESHAWAR, PROJECT
KHANDWA DISTT.M.P (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. COLLECTOR EAST NIMAD DISTT. KHANDWA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. N H D C THR. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NARMADA
DEVELOPMENT DIVISION SUB DIVISION NVDA
OFFICE COMPLEX (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(NONE FOR THE STATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
Shri Ajeet Rawat, Government Advocate appeared before this court and
submits that the file has been allotted to some other counsel and the same is not
available on dais; therefore, he could not respond to the matter.
I n this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the
petitioner has assailed the order dated 31.07.2009 passed in Reference Under
Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act by the Second Additional District Judge,
District Khandwa (M.P.), whereby the reference case filed by the petitioner has
been dismissed on mechanical and technical ground.
Case of the petitioner is that the reference Court was required to answer the
Signature Not Verified
reference and it could not have been dismissed without answering it.
SAN
The coordinate Bench in the matter of Vinay Kumari Vs. The Land
Digitally signed by SHALINI LANDGE
Date: 2022.03.16 13:26:19 IST
Acquisition & Rehabilitation Officer and others in W.P. No.17704/2015 vide
order dated 5/11/2015 has held as under:-
"œShri Shashank Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Deepak Awasthi, learned G.A. for the respondent/State.
Heard.
Being aggrieved by the rejection of the reference in default of appearance and assailing
the said order, this petition has been filed.
Since the issue is covered by the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of
Khazan Singh (dead) by L.R.s vs. Union of India, [(2002) 2 SCC 242, the matter is heard
finally.
T he reference was made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act on an
application made by the petitioner before the Collector, Land Acquisition to the District Court,
where the same was registered as Reference Case No.796/2009. The reference was dismissed
by the court below on the ground that the counsel for the applicant did not want to prosecute the
same and affirmed the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer.
After examining the order passed by learned Reference Court, it seems that the
Reference Court was required to answer the reference and not to dismiss the same
mechanically, as has been done vide order impugned.
In view of the aforesaid and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in case of
Khazan Singh (supra), wherein it has categorically been held that reference is required to be
answered and not to be dismissed in default, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated
22.2.2010 is hereby set aside. The reference case is restored to its original number and remitted
back to the Reference Court to decide the same in accordance to law.
With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands finally disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules."
Similarly in the matter of Prahlad Vs. The Land Acquisition &
Rehabilitation Officer and others in W.P. No.174/2013 by order dated
26/2/2013 taking note of Section 26 of of the Act it has been held as under:-
"I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. In the
order passed by the Division Bench on 27.8.2010 in the cases as relied upon by Shri Shashank
Upadhyay, the following directions have been issued :-
"The Court below observed that inspite of various opportunities, the process fee
was not paid and the petitioner had not taken any steps for service on the respondents.
"26. Form of Award:-(1) Every award under this part shall be in writing signed by
the Judge, and shall specify the amount awarded under clause first of sub section (1) of
Signature Not Verified
Section 23, and also the amounts (if any) respectively awarded under each of the other
SAN
Digitally signed by SHALINI LANDGE
Date: 2022.03.16 13:26:19 IST clauses of the same sub section, together with the grounds of awarding each of the said
amounts.
(2) Every such award shall be deemed to be a decree and the statement of the
grounds of every such award a judgment within the meaning of Section 2 clause (2) and
Section 2 clause (9) respectively, of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
7. The provisions above subsumed would thus make it clear that the Civil Court
has to pass an award in answer to the reference made by the Collector under Section 18
of the Act. If any party to whom notice has been served by the Civil Court and did not
participate in the inquiry it would only be at his risk because an award would be passed
perhaps to the detriment of the party concerned. But non participation of any party would
not confer jurisdiction on the Civil Court to dismiss the reference for default."
The Apex Court considering the aforesaid provision held that reference
application cannot be dismissed because of the default.
The controversy involved in this case is covered by the judgment in the case of
Khazan Singh (supra).
In view of the aforesaid, the impugned judgment order is not sustainable in law
and it is set aside, the matter is remanded back to the reference Court to restore the file
of Reference Case No.1077/2010 and proceed in the case.
Considering the facts of the case, there shall be no order as to costs."
A perusal of the aforesaid order of Division Bench clearly goes to show that apart from
taking note of the fact that the reference has been rejected on the ground of the default
committed by the petitioner, the provision of Section 26 is taken note of and the matter is
remanded back to the reference Court for proceeding in accordance with law. In the present
writ petitions also defaults have been committed by the petitioners and the reference is refused
to be answered due to the aforesaid default on the part of the petitioners. However, in three of
the cases i.e. W.P. No.175/2013, WP 174/2013 and WP 231/2013 it is stated that the award
is confirmed but the requirement of writing a judgment as contemplated under Section 26 of the
Land Acquisition Act and after following the proceeding required under Section 23 of CPC is
not followed. That being so, it is a case where even though it is held that the award passed by
the Land Tribunal is upheld but while upholding the award the requirement of Section 26 of the
Land Acquisition Act is not followed. Under such circumstances, I do not deem it appropriate
to relegate the petitioners to take recourse to the alternate remedy. Instead it is held that as the
order passed by the Reference Court is not after following due process of law as held by the
Division Bench, therefore, it is a fit case where the order passed in all the four cases should be
quashed and matter is remanded back to the Reference Court for proceeding further as already
been directed under similar circumstances in the order passed on 1.7.2011 in
Signature Not Verified
SAN
W.P.No.7822/2011 by this Court.
Digitally signed by SHALINI LANDGE
Date: 2022.03.16 13:26:19 IST
I n view of the above, all the petitions are allowed. Orders impugned passed by the
Court below are quashed. Reference Case No.762/2009, 50/2009, 566/2009 and Reference
Case No.1061/2007 are restored to its original file and matter is remanded back to the
Reference Court. Original file, if any received from the Court below be sent
back.ÂÂÂÂ
Undisputedly the present case also stands on the same footing. Hence for
the reasons which have been assigned in the aforesaid orders in the case of Vinay
Kumari (supra) and Prahlad (supra) and the fact that the reference has not been
answered in the present case, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is
remanded back for fresh decision of the reference in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid observations, this petition is disposed of.
C.C. as per rules.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
Sha
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by SHALINI LANDGE
Date: 2022.03.16 13:26:19 IST
