Case Note & Summary
The revision petitioner, Malanbee W/o Ahmed Saab Mulla, was the owner and possessor of Survey/Gat No. 362/411-2, admeasuring 44 R, situated at Murum, Tq. Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad. The land was acquired by the respondents (State of Maharashtra and Executive Engineer) for the Benitura Medium Project, Murum. Possession was taken by private negotiations with an agreement to pay 10% per annum rental compensation. A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published. On 18th March, 1996, the revision petitioner came to know about the passing of the Award. On 13th November, 1997, she filed Land Acquisition Reference No. 205 of 2005 (Old No. 873 of 1997) seeking compensation at the rate of Rs. 50,000/- per acre. The reference was pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Osmanabad. The reference was dismissed for default, and the applicant's application for restoration was also rejected. The revision petitioner challenged these orders before the High Court. The High Court, after hearing counsel for both parties, found that the lower court had not properly considered the applicant's contention that she was not served with notice of the reference proceedings. The court noted that the applicant was an aged widow and had no knowledge of the proceedings. The High Court held that the dismissal of the reference and rejection of the restoration application were procedurally irregular and that the ends of justice required the matter to be decided on merits. Accordingly, the High Court allowed the civil revision application, set aside the impugned orders, and restored the Land Acquisition Reference to the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Osmanabad, directing that it be decided afresh on its own merits after giving an opportunity of hearing to both parties. The rule was made absolute with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Reference under Section 18 - Ex-parte Order - Restoration - The applicant, owner of acquired land, filed a reference for enhanced compensation. The reference was dismissed for default and restoration application was rejected on ground of delay and lack of sufficient cause. The High Court held that the lower court failed to consider that the applicant was not served with notice of the reference proceedings, and the dismissal was procedurally irregular. The court restored the reference to file, directing the lower court to decide it afresh on merits after giving opportunity to both parties. (Paras 1-8) B) Civil Procedure - Restoration of Suit - Sufficient Cause - The High Court observed that the applicant, an aged widow, had no knowledge of the proceedings and the reference was dismissed without giving her an opportunity to be heard. The court held that the ends of justice require that the matter be decided on merits rather than on technicalities of limitation or default. (Paras 5-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Civil Judge (Senior Division) was justified in dismissing the Land Acquisition Reference for default and refusing to restore it, despite the applicant's claim of non-service of notice and lack of opportunity to present her case.
Final Decision
The Civil Revision Application is allowed. The impugned orders dated 13th November, 1997 and 30th September, 2009 are set aside. The Land Acquisition Reference No. 205 of 2005 (Old No. 873 of 1997) is restored to the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Osmanabad, to be decided afresh on its own merits after giving an opportunity of hearing to both parties. Rule made absolute. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Land Acquisition Act
- 1894
- Section 18
- Reference
- Ex-parte order
- Restoration
- Sufficient cause
- Procedural irregularity
