R. F. A No. 3165 of 2006 1
In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh
Date of decision : 6.11.2008
1. R. F. A No. 3165 of 2006 (O&M)
Sardara Ram and others ... Appellants
vs
The State of Haryana .... Respondent
2. R. F. A No. 3166 of 2006 (O&M)
Bachan Singh and others ….. Appellants
vs
The State of Haryana …. Respondent
3. R. F. A No. 3167 of 2006 (O&M)
Prem Chand and others … Appellants
vs
The State of Haryana …. Respondent
4. R. F. A No. 3168 of 2006 (O&M)
Chander Bhan and others … Appellants
vs
The State of Haryana …. Respondent
5. R. F. A No. 3857 of 2006 (O&M)
Jai Singh and others … Appellants
vs
The State of Haryana …. Respondent
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present: Mr. Bhag Singh, Advocate, for the appellants.
Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.
Rajesh Bindal J.
This order shall dispose of Regular First Appeal Nos. 3165 to
3168 and 3857 of 2006, filed by the landowners for further enhancement of
compensation, as the same arise out of the same acquisition. However, the
facts have been extracted from R. F. A. No. 3165 of 2006.
Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 9.7.1986,
issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the
R. F. A No. 3165 of 2006 2
Act’), the State of Haryana acquired land in Village Rampur, District
Ambala, for public purpose namely for extension of Link Road from
Naraingarh-Raipur Rani Road to Ujjal Majri Road. The Land Acquisition
Collector announced the award on 31.3.1987. Dissatisfied with the award
of the Land Acquisition Collector, the landowners/claimants filed
objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court
below vide award dated 9.10.1998, rejected their claim.
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the land of
the appellants was acquired for the purpose of extension of Link Road from
Naraingarh-Raipur Rani Road to Ujjal Majri Road. The appellants being
poor landowners filed objections against the award of the Collector and it
was with great difficulty that they could get the same referred to the learned
court below nearly more than 10 years after the acquisition. They had
engaged a counsel to represent their case. However, on account of no
intimation about the progress of the case from him and without proper
guidance as to what they had to do to get the fair value of the acquired land
assessed, the reference made by the Collector was dismissed by the learned
court below on the statement of the counsel engaged by them pleading no
instructions. The submission is that where the land of the appellants has
been acquired, the assessment of the fair compensation therefor is a
beneficial piece of legislation, which this court should construe liberally.
Even if the counsel had pleaded no instructions, notice should have been
given to the appellants to enable them to engage another counsel or take
appropriate steps to prosecute their case. It was a reference made by the
Collector to the learned court below and even in the absence of the parties,
the same should not have been answered on merits rather the same could be
returned unanswered to the Collector. Reliance was placed upon
Basalingappa Kushappa Kumbhar and others vs Shidramappa Irappa
Shivanagi and another AIR (30) 1943 Bombay 321.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that
a perusal of the record of the case shows casualness on the part of the
appellants. They were not following their case diligently and such a litigant
should not be shown any indulgence by this court even if they were
illiterate. Notice was not required to be issued to the appellants when their
counsel pleaded no instructions while appearing before the Reference Court.
R. F. A No. 3165 of 2006 3
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Tahil Ram Issardas Sadarangani
and others vs Ramchand Issardas Sadarangani and another 1993
(Supplementary) 3 SCC 256 while considering the issue as to what course is
to be adopted when a counsel representing a client pleads no instructions,
had opined that in such a case when the litigant is not present on that
particular date when the counsel pleads no instructions, actual date notice of
hearing should be sent to the parties. As the party cannot be said to be at
fault. The following passage through light thereon:-
“It is not disputed in the present case that on March
15, 1974 when Mr. Adhia, advocate withdrew from the
case, the petitioners were not present in court. There is
nothing on the record to show as to whether the
petitioners had the notice of the hearing of the case on
that day. We are of the view, when Mr. Adhia withdrew
from the case, the interests of justice required, that a
fresh notice for actual date hearing should have been
sent to the parties. In any case in the facts and
circumstances of this case we feel that the party in
person was not at fault and as such should not be
made to suffer.”
Similar view was expressed in Malkiat Singh and another vs
Joginder Singh and others JT 1997 (9) SC 642.
From the pronunciation of law as referred to above, it is clearly
established that where a party is not negligent and on a date when counsel
representing him pleads no instructions, the notice ought to have been
issued to the litigant. In the present case what is found is that the appellants,
whose land was acquired, are illiterate. They had engaged a counsel to
represent them. Though the land was acquired way back in the 1986, the
reference was made by the Collector nearly 10 years thereafter. The issue in
the present case were framed on 9.10.1997 and three dates were fixed for
evidence thereafter. The counsel representing them pleaded no instructions
as a result thereof the learned court below dismissed the reference on
account of there being no evidence on record to justify the enhancement of
compensation. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, the
R. F. A No. 3165 of 2006 4
court should have more considerate when the litigants are poor villagers,
who are dependent for legal advice on their counsel and also the fact that
their land had been acquired and they are praying for determination of just
and fair compensation for the same.
For the reasons stated above, the impugned award of the
learned court below is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the learned
Reference Court. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear
before the learned District Judge, Ambala, on 9.1.2009. The learned District
Judge may either kept the references with himself or may entrust the same to
any other Additional District Judge. It would be appreciated in case the trial
of the case is expedited keeping in view the fact that the land in question
was acquired way back in 1986.
The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
6.11.2008 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge