Case at a Glance
Landowners whose land was acquired had obtained a reference under Section 18 of the J&K Land Acquisition Act for higher compensation. When they were absent on 25 May 2022, the Principal District Judge, Poonch dismissed the reference for non-prosecution, and later refused to restore it because the restoration application was 14 months and 12 days late. Allowing their appeal, the J&K and Ladakh High Court held, following Khazan Singh (Dead) by LRs v. Union of India, (2002) 01 SC CK 0019, that a reference court must answer a land acquisition reference on merits and has no jurisdiction to dismiss it for default. The reference was restored to its original number.
At the request of the appellants, whose land had been acquired, the Collector Land Acquisition (SDM) Mendhar made a reference under Section 18 of the J&K Land Acquisition Act. The reference was registered before the Principal District Judge, Poonch as Reference File No. 08/Civil Misc. On 25 May 2022, when the case was called, the appellants were absent, and the court dismissed the reference for non-prosecution the same day.
On 7 August 2023, 14 months and 12 days late, the appellants applied for restoration along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay. By order dated 10 September 2024 the trial court rejected both applications, finding no sufficient cause for the delay. The appellants appealed under Order XLIII Rule 1(c) CPC, with an application to condone a further two-day delay in filing the appeal. They argued that the reference court had no power to dismiss a Section 18 reference in default and that, once made, it had to be decided on merits.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can a civil court dismiss a land acquisition reference under Section 18 for non-prosecution when the claimants fail to appear?
A reference is a statutory duty, not an ordinary suit
Justice Sanjeev Kumar relied on the Supreme Court in Khazan Singh (Dead) by LRs v. Union of India, which explains that once the Collector makes a reference, the civil court’s task is to determine the compensation. The Court quoted the principle that “non-participation of any party would not confer jurisdiction on the Civil Court to dismiss the reference for default.” The civil court, it held, “has to answer the reference on merits”, rather than throwing it out because a party did not appear.
Measured against that principle, the order of 25 May 2022 dismissing the reference for non-prosecution was “without jurisdiction.” Since the dismissal itself was without jurisdiction, the Court held that the belated restoration application ought to have been allowed on that ground alone, and the trial court erred in refusing it merely because the delay was not satisfactorily explained. The Court also condoned the two-day delay in filing the appeal.
What the Court Actually Held
- A civil court to which a land acquisition reference is made under Section 18 must answer the reference on merits.
- Non-participation of a party does not give the civil court jurisdiction to dismiss the reference for default (Khazan Singh v. Union of India).
- The dismissal of the reference for non-prosecution on 25 May 2022 was without jurisdiction, so the restoration application should have been allowed despite the delay.
- The appeal was allowed, the order of 10 September 2024 set aside and Reference File No. 08 restored to its original number; the appellants were directed to appear before the trial court on 27 November 2026.
Why This Judgment Matters
- Landowners seeking enhanced compensation cannot lose their reference merely because they missed a hearing.
- It shows that delay in seeking restoration matters less where the original dismissal was itself without jurisdiction.
- It applies Khazan Singh to a J&K Land Acquisition Act reference, guiding reference courts in the Union Territory.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Landowners
- If your Section 18 reference was dismissed because you were absent, it can be restored.
- The court must decide your compensation claim on merits.
- Still attend hearings: restoration takes time and litigation costs.
For Counsel
- Challenge default dismissals of land acquisition references as being without jurisdiction, citing Khazan Singh.
- An appeal lies under Order XLIII Rule 1(c) CPC against refusal to restore.
- Pair the appeal with a condonation application where there is delay.
Key Takeaways
- Land acquisition references cannot be dismissed for default.
- The reference court must answer the reference on merits.
- A dismissal without jurisdiction should be undone even if restoration is sought late.
- The reference was restored and the parties directed to appear on 27 November 2026.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a Section 18 reference?
When a landowner does not accept the Collector’s award, the Collector refers the matter to the civil court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to decide the proper compensation.
Can the court dismiss the reference if the landowner does not appear?
No. Following Khazan Singh v. Union of India, the High Court held that non-participation does not give the civil court jurisdiction to dismiss the reference for default; it must answer it on merits.
What about the 14-month delay in applying for restoration?
The High Court held that because the dismissal was without jurisdiction, the restoration application should have been allowed on that ground alone, despite the delay.
Conclusion
The ruling treats a land acquisition reference as a statutory duty that the civil court must discharge, not a lawsuit that ends when a party is absent. For landowners in remote districts like Poonch, it keeps alive a compensation claim that would otherwise have been lost on a technicality.
Practical takeaway: If a Section 18 reference has been dismissed in default, move for restoration and, if refused, appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(c) CPC, relying on Khazan Singh.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com