Bombay High Court Allows Civil Revision Against Dismissal of Land Acquisition Reference for Default — Restoration Granted on Ground of Sufficient Cause. The court held that non-appearance due to lack of knowledge of the hearing date constitutes sufficient cause, and a liberal approach is warranted in land acquisition matters to avoid depriving the claimant of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Civil Revision Application against dismissal of Land Acquisition Reference for default

Petitioner sought setting aside of the order dated 9.3.2007 dismissing the Land Acquisition Reference and restoration of the reference for fresh hearing on merits

The Land Acquisition Reference was dismissed for default on 9.3.2007 on the ground that no one appeared for the claimant; the petitioner claimed no knowledge of the hearing date

The Land Acquisition Officer awarded meager compensation; the claimant filed Reference No. 485 of 1998 (later renumbered as L.A.R. No. 442 of 2005) which was dismissed for default on 9.3.2007 by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Omerga

Whether the dismissal of the Land Acquisition Reference for default was justified when the petitioner claimed lack of knowledge of the hearing date Whether the High Court should interfere under Section 115 CPC to restore the reference

Petitioner argued that the dismissal was unjustified as the petitioner had no knowledge of the date fixed by the court and the court should have given notice before dismissing the reference Respondent argued that the reference was rightly dismissed for default as no one appeared for the claimant

The explanation of non-appearance due to lack of knowledge of the hearing date constitutes sufficient cause for restoration. In land acquisition matters, a liberal approach should be adopted to ensure that claimants are not deprived of compensation without a proper hearing. The court has inherent power to restore proceedings dismissed for default to secure the ends of justice.

Heard counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, heard finally. This Revision application is filed being aggrieved by the order dated 9.3.2007, passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Omerga in L.A.R. No. 442 of 2005 (Old No. 485 of 1998), thereby dismissing Land Acquisition Reference filed by the the husband of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that the land bearing survey No. 336 admeasuring 1 H 25 R situated at village Salegaon, Tq. Omerga, District Osmanabad belonging to the petitioner have been acquired by the respondent authorities for the purpose of rehabilitation of earthquake affected persons of village Kaldeo-Nimbala. The learned Judge had taken the matter for hearing on 9.3.2007 and dismissed the Land Acquisition Reference, on the ground that no any one appeared on behalf of the claimant. In the result, the Civil Revision Application is allowed. The impugned order dated 9.3.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Omerga in L.A.R. No. 442 of 2005 is set aside. The Land Acquisition Reference is restored to the file of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Omerga, who is directed to decide the same afresh on its own merits after giving an opportunity of hearing to both parties. Rule made absolute with no order as to costs.

The land was acquired by the State for rehabilitation of earthquake affected persons. The Land Acquisition Officer published notices under Sections 4, 6, and 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and awarded meager compensation. The claimant filed Land Acquisition Reference No. 485 of 1998 before the District Judge, Osmanabad, which was later transferred to the newly established court at Omerga and renumbered as L.A.R. No. 442 of 2005. On 9.3.2007, the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Omerga dismissed the reference for default as no one appeared for the claimant. The petitioner filed Civil Revision Application No. 155 of 2010 before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, challenging the dismissal order.

• Land Acquisition Act, 1894: 4, 6, 9, 18, 30
• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 115