Collector vs Sri Kastoor Chand Jain and Others

S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

This appeal is directed against judgment, award and decree dated 15.04.1982 given by VI A.D.J., Agra in L.A. Case No. 39 of 1978.

Appeal was filed in the year 1983 along with delay condonation application. Delay was condoned on 02.11.1994. Thereafter, the above regular number was allotted to the appeal. Even though the matter is extremely old still the court has got no option except to remand the matter.

For constructing 220 K.V. Station and Staff quarters for Electricity Board, an area of 2397.92 square yards belonging to the respondents was acquired. Notification u/s 4, Land Acquisition Act was published on 10.05.1975. Special Land Acquisition Officer determined Rs. 4660.35/- as compensation (i.e. the market value of the acquired land was determined @ about Rs. 2/- per square yard.). Dissatisfied with the offer of compensation, respondents applied for making reference u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, which was accordingly made and decided ex parte by the impugned judgment. The claimants claimed the compensation on the basis of market value of their acquired land @ Rs. 14/- per square yard. In this manner, an additional amount of Rs. 33,946.28/- was claimed by the claimants respondents. Mahavir Prasad- PW-1, one of the claimants, and Nawal Kishore Saxena- PW-2, clerk in the Office of Agra Development Authority were examined before the reference court on 03.11.1981. On the said date, learned government counsel had filed adjournment application on the ground that his father was admitted in a hospital and he would not be in a position to come to the court and attend the case. Adjournment application was rejected by the court below on the ground that earlier three adjournments had been sought by the government counsel and that no date was mentioned in the adjournment application on which father of the government counsel was admitted in hospital and that it could hardly be a ground for adjournment. In my opinion, all the three reasons are not tenable.

Illness and admission in hospital of advocate''s father is a good ground for adjournment. father If counsel states that his father is admitted in hospital, normally the statement is to be believed. It is not necessary to give the name of the hospital and documentary evidence regarding admission of the patient in the hospital. Earlier adjournments could not be a ground to reject the subsequent adjournment application on different ground. Moreover the previous two adjournments were sought by government counsel on 28.02.1981 and 25.09.1981. Naturally in the intervening period of about eight months, some more dates must have been fixed and adjournments due to some other reasons except adjournment applications on behalf of government counsel must have been granted.

Before the reference court no sale deed on its copy was filed. The court below mainly placed reliance upon the evidence of P.W. 2 clerk of Agra Development Authority, who stated that premium @ Rs. 100/- per square yard was obtained from the allottees in whose favour patta of some land was executed on 04.01.1975 and 10.02.1975. Absolutely no document was filed in that regard. It is also not mentioned in the judgment as to whether original records, on the basis of which the said statement was given, were brought and shown to the court or not. Ultimately, the court below held that in the absence of any cross-examination of the witnesses of claimants, the court had no other option except to accept the rate asserted by the claimants, i.e. Rs. 14/- per square yard.

Thereafter, rehearing/ restoration application was filed on behalf of the State, which was rejected on 01.01.1983. The said judgment and order has also been challenged through this appeal. The pairokar had stated that when the case was called out, he had gone to ease himself. The court below did not believe the said version. In any case, when adjournment application had been filed by the government counsel, it was not very much essential for the pairokar to remain present. I have already held that adjournment application was rejected on wrong grounds.

If there had been some material on record apart from statements in chief of the witnesses of plaintiff, I would have tried to decide the matter finally; however there is no material on record.

Accordingly, I do not have any option except to remand the matter.

Appeal is allowed. Judgment and order dated 01.01.1983 dismissing the restoration application is set aside. Restoration application is allowed on payment of Rs. 500/- as cost. Judgment, award and decree dated 15.04.1982 is also set aside. Reference (L.A. Case No. 39 of 1978) is restored to its original number on the file of the court below, i.e. VI A.D.J., Agra. Both the parties are directed to appear before the court below on 01.09.2008 along with certified copy of this judgment. The court below shall make all efforts to decide the reference as expeditiously as possible. As the matter is quite old, hence it must be heard and decided on the priority basis. The amount of the aforesaid cost shall positively be deposited by 01.09.2008, failing which this judgment and decree shall stand automatically vacated and appeal shall stand dismissed.