Kundan Lal and Others vs District Revenue Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Collector Secretary and Others

L.N. Mittal, J.—Land owners, who are petitioners before the reference Court in reference u/s 18 and Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, have filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 09.05.2013 (Annexure P-1) passed by the reference Court (Additional District Judge), thereby closing evidence of petitioners by Court order. I have heard counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file.

Counsel for the petitioners contended that matter pertaining to the same land was pending in Hon''ble Supreme Court and, therefore, counsel for the petitioners in the reference Court advised that no proceedings in the case will take place because the matter was subjudice before Hon''ble Supreme Court and the petitioners shall get notice regarding date of hearing to be fixed by the reference Court after decision by Hon''ble Supreme Court and, therefore, petitioners were not aware of the proceedings going on before the reference Court. Accordingly, it was prayed that another opportunity may be granted to the petitioners for their evidence.

I have carefully considered the matter. The aforesaid contention and prayer made by counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Perusal of zimni orders of the reference Court (Annexure P-2 collectively) reveals that the petitioners were granted as many as 11 effective opportunities for their evidence. According to proviso to Order 17 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, only three opportunities are required to be granted to a party for its evidence. The said provision being rule of procedure is directory and not mandatory and may be followed with some flexibility and not with extreme rigidity. However, at the same time, the said provision cannot be made redundant by granting infinite number of opportunities to a party for its evidence. The said provision has been enacted with salutary objective of curtailing delay in disposal of cases and, therefore, it is a very important provision which should not be given complete go by. In the instant case, the petitioners have been granted as many as eleven opportunities for their evidence by the reference Court. Consequently, they do not deserve any further indulgence by this court by granting any more opportunity to them for their evidence. It is significant to notice that on 12.04.2013, the case was adjourned to 09.05.2013 for evidence of petitioners, subject to payment of Rs. 5,000/- to be deposited with District Legal Services Authority. Even the costs amount was not paid/deposited.

The plea that some matter relating to the same land was pending in Hon''ble Supreme Court, does not carry any weight because there was no order either by Hon''ble Supreme Court or by the reference Court to stay or adjourn sine die the reference pending in the reference Court. Moreover, it has been mentioned in the revision petition that SLP was disposed of by Hon''ble Supreme Court on 04.05.2012 vide order Annexure P-3 (wrongly mentioned as Annexure P-2 in paragraph 5 of the revision petition). Evidence of the petitioners was closed more than one year thereafter vide order dated 09.05.2013. During this period of one year also, at least six opportunities were granted to the petitioners for their evidence. It cannot be accepted that even after decision of the matter by Hon''ble Supreme Court, the petitioners did not contact their counsel for more than one year to know the fate or status of the reference pending before the reference Court. Thus examined from any angle, no further opportunity is required to be granted to the petitioners for their evidence.

Resultantly, I find no merit in this revision petition. There is no perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in impugned order of the reference Court so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. On the contrary, the reference Court was left with no option but to close the evidence of the petitioners by Court order because they had already been granted large number of opportunities (11 opportunities) for their evidence and also because they failed to pay the costs of adjournment. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed in limine. CM No. 19782-CII of 2013 for interim stay is disposed of as infructuous.