AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Nandita Dubey, J
Being a son of the deceased, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 28.10.2010 (Annexure P/2) passed by 4th Additional District Judge, Khandwa, whereby the Reference Application filed by his late father under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, was dismissed.
An objection regarding the delay has been raised by the learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State. It is stated that there is inordinate delay of 11 years in filing the present petition.
However, looking to the fact that the reference was dismissed on the technical ground and as explained by the petitioner that he has no knowledge that the reference has been dismissed, the objection raised by the respondent/State is over ruled.
Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that the present case is covered by the judgment passed in M.P. No.965/2020 (Shripath vs. The Land Acquisition Officer and Rehabilitation Officer and others) decided on 18.02.2020, wherein this Court has held thus:
''Heard.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the land was acquired in the year 2001 and the award was passed in the year 2004. He filed an application before the Land Acquisition Officer in the year 2004 but the reference was made by the Collector in the year 2010 before the Reference Court and the Reference Court without application of mind, on technical ground has dismissed the reference.
It is stated that petitioner has no knowledge that this reference has been sent with delay before the Reference Court and the same has been dismissed in the year 2010 by the impugned order.
It is further submitted that the application of the other persons who are similarly situated have been allowed and the matter has been remanded to the Reference Court to decide the same in accordance with law.
This fact has not been denied by the learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State.
The issue is covered by a decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Khazan Singh (dead) by L.R.s Vs. Union of India(2002) 2 SCC 242.
After examining the order passed by learned Reference Court,it seems that the Reference Court was required to answer the reference and not to dismiss the same mechanically, as has been done vide order impugned.
In view of the aforesaid and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in case of Khazan Singh (supra), wherein it has categorically been held that the reference is required to be answered and not to be dismissed in default, the petition is allowed. The order dated 27.04.2010 (Anneuxre P-1) is hereby set aside. The reference case is restored to its original number and remitted back to the Reference Court to decide the same in accordance with law.
Needless to say, in case the petitioner makes an appropriate application for grant of permission to adduce the evidence, the Reference Court will decide the same in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid, the petition stands finally disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules."
Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State has no objection to the same. Considering the aforesaid, the order passed in the case of Shripath (supra) shall apply mutatis mutandis in this case also.
Resultantly, the petition is allowed. The order dated 28.10.2010 (Annexure P/2) is hereby set aside. The reference case is restored to its original number and remanded back to the Reference Court to decide the same in accordance with law.
Needless to say, in case the petitioner makes an appropriate application for grant of permission to adduce the evidence, the Reference Court will decide the same in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid observations, the petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.
No order as to costs.
Certified copy as per rules.