AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.R. Bannurmath, C.J.—Aggrieved by the rejection of the writ petition filed by the appellant/petitioner, the present writ appeal is filed.
As per the facts disclosed, a piece of land belonging to the appellant was acquired for the purpose of NTPC Project in the year 1991 and the Land Acquisition Officer/the District Collector had determined the market value. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant approached the referal court u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') in the year 1991 itself. However, for the next five years, inspite of giving opportunities after opportunities, no evidence whatsoever was let in by the appellant and when this was brought to his notice, again time was asked for. Considering the negligent attitude of the appellant in not seriously prosecuting the reference, the referal court dismissed the reference not on the ground of default, but taking into consideration the other factors required for determination of market value and came to the conclusion that the value awarded by the District Collector is just and proper.
It is to be noted that this order on merits was passed by the referal court inspite of the submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the matter can be closed without any further reference and liberty to the appellant being reserved to seek appropriate relief u/s 28A(1) of the Act whenever subsequent orders in respect of the similarly situated lands are passed. This order was passed in the year 1996 and thereafter in the year 2005, again an attempt was made to get the reference reopened before the referal court. This prayer was rejected in the year 2006. After sleeping over for the next three years one fine morning in the year 2009 the appellant awoke as the legendary Rip Van Vinkle and filed this writ petition.
The learned Single Judge though found that the contention regarding inaction or non-action of the appellant in not pursuing the reference is unjustifiable, nevertheless gave an opportunity to the appellant to make an application u/s 28A(1) of the Act if permissible, as requested by the appellant himself. It is this order in the writ petition that is impugned before us.
To substantiate his argument that even if a party is negligent or does not appear in the referal court, it is the duty of the referal court to consider the case on merits, learned Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the pronouncement of a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court in the case of M.S. Ramaiah and Ors. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer AIR 1974 Kant 122 and a decision of this Court in Joseph v. Government of Kerala 1991 (2) KLT 69. There is no dispute as to the proposition of the law laid down, but the whole difference it makes in the present case and the reported cases relied upon, is that in those cases the court did not go into the merit at all. However, in the present case, inspite of the negligent attitude of the appellant throughout, as we have already noted, right upto the approach to this Court, nevertheless the referal court has gone into the merits of the case and found that the market value calculated is just and proper. Even the learned Single Judge has looked into this aspect. Even before the Sub Judge and the learned Single Judge, an emphatic submission was made knowing fully well the consequences of a futile nature of the explanation to the negligent inaction, that the case may be closed without prejudice to the appellant''s right to seek relief u/s 28A(1). This liberty was in fact given at the instance of the request of the learned Counsel for the appellant by the Sub Judge and the learned Single Judge has also reaffirmed it.
On the face of the sheer negligence of the appellant and inspite of the same the matter was being considered by the Sub Judge on merits as well as reaffirmed by the learned Single Judge, we find absolutely no merit in the case on hand. Hence we dismiss the writ appeal.