Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, heard a batch of eleven writ petitions filed by landowners whose agricultural lands were acquired for the Wardha to Nanded Rail Project under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The landowners had challenged orders passed by the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority (Second Authority) under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, setting aside earlier reference orders that had enhanced compensation. The acquisition proceedings commenced with a preliminary notification under Section 11 of the 2013 Act, followed by declarations under Sections 19 and 21. The Land Acquisition Officer passed awards under Section 23 determining compensation, which the landowners found inadequate. They filed references under Section 64 before the First Authority, which enhanced the compensation rates. The Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), Central Railway, the acquiring body, had entered appearance through Advocate Sawarkar in all reference proceedings, filed written statements, and submitted evidence on affidavit. Despite this, the Second Authority, upon an application by the acquiring body, set aside the reference orders on the ground that there had been no cross-examination of the claimants' evidence and the acquiring body's evidence had not been considered, thus treating the orders as ex-parte. The landowners contended that the orders were not ex-parte since the acquiring body had actively participated. The High Court examined the roznama and found that the acquiring body indeed appeared, filed a written statement, and led evidence. The court held that an order cannot be considered ex-parte when a party has put in appearance, filed pleadings, and adduced evidence; the mere absence of cross-examination or adverse reasoning does not convert an otherwise contested order into an ex-parte one. Consequently, the Second Authority had no jurisdiction to set aside the orders under Order IX Rule 13. The writ petitions were allowed, and the impugned orders were quashed, restoring the original reference orders that granted enhanced compensation to the landowners. The court ruled in favor of the landowners, emphasizing the distinction between an ex-parte order and a decision on merits where a party has participated.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Ex-parte Orders - Order IX Rule 13 CPC - Setting Aside - Where a party has appeared, filed written statement and evidence, an order cannot be set aside as ex-parte merely because there was no cross-examination or the evidence was not considered - Held that the impugned orders setting aside reference orders as ex-parte were illegal and without jurisdiction (Paras 6-10). B) Land Acquisition - Reference Proceedings - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, Sections 64, 51 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order IX Rule 13 - The Acquiring Body having entered appearance, filed written statement and evidence affidavit, the reference orders passed thereafter could not be treated as ex-parte; the Second Authority had no jurisdiction to set them aside on that ground (Paras 6-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the reference orders passed by the Land Acquisition Authority could be treated as ex-parte and set aside under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure when the Acquiring Body had appeared, filed written statement, and filed evidence on affidavit.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petitions, quashed the impugned orders of the Second Authority, and restored the original reference orders of the First Authority enhancing compensation. The court held that the reference orders were not ex-parte as the Acquiring Body had appeared, filed written statement and evidence.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- An order passed after a party has appeared and filed written statement and evidence cannot be treated as ex-parte under Order IX Rule 13 CPC
- Mere absence of cross-examination or failure to consider evidence does not render an order ex-parte if the party has participated in the proceedings
- Reference orders under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation Act are not ex-parte when the Acquiring Body has filed appearance
- written statement and evidence affidavit
