JUDGMENT
L. Mohapatra, J.
1. This revision arises out of the order dated 24.12.1996 in Misc. Case No. 126 of 1995 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar rejecting the application of the petitioners filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. Land Acquisition Misc. Case No. 68 of 1989 pending in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar was posted to 20.4.1992 for hearing in which the present petitioners are also petitioners. On the said date the petitioners failed to appear in Court as they did not receive any intimation through the clerk of their Advocate. Later on 13.3.1995 they come to know that the case was closed on 20.4.1992 and filed application under Section 141 of the C.P.C. for restoration of the case. No objection was filed on behalf of the opposite party. The learned Civil Judge rejected the application stating that the Land Acquisition Misc. Case has not been dismissed for default but an order was passed confirming the award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector and therefore, an appeal lies against the said order and accordingly declined to interfere and rejected the petition.
3. Shri. S.K.Gajendra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in a land acquisition case where reference is made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, the learned Subordinate Judge has no jurisdiction to either dismiss the case or confirm the award in absence of the parties. Therefore, the order passed on 20.4.1992 is non est in the eye of law and the said order should have been recalled on the basis of the petition filed by the petitioners under Section 151 of C.P.C. Learned counsel has relied upon a decision reported in 1991 (II) OLR 164 (Jogi Sahu and another v. Collector, Cuttack). In the said decision this Court held that when a claimant does not accept the award of the Collector, on an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act being filed the Collector makes a reference to the reference Court. On the reference being made, the claimant does not become plaintiff or petitioner before the Court, As provided under Section 20 of the Act, the Court has to serve notice on the claimant on whose application reference has been made under Section 18 of the Act. After the notice, the Court is required to make an award in terms of Section 26(I) of the Act and this award is deemed to be a decree under Section 26(2). It is therefore, impermissible to dismiss a case for default. Dismissal for default is not in terms of Order 9, Rule 8. C.P.C. since the land acquisition reference cannot be dismissed for non-appearance of the claimant under Order 9, Rule 8, C.P.C. and Section 53 of the Act shall not operate in this case. The said observation was made by this Court referring to several other decisions. It was further held that an application under Section 151 C.P.C. is maintainable and in exercise of the inherent powers the Court can set aside the order of dismissal for default. Relying on the principles laid down in the said case, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Civil Judge (Senior Divisions) should have exercised inherent powers under Section 151 of the C.P.C. and should have recalled the order dated 20.4.1992.
4. As it appears from the.impugned order dated 20.4.1992 in absence of the petitioners the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar passed the following order. “The award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector stands. The reference is answered accordingly.” This order has been passed not only in absence of the petitioners but also in absence of any other material on record. In the decision referred to above, this Court has observed that a person whose land was being acquired is entitled to compensation
therefore, and this entitlement should not be denied except on very compelling reasons. To deprive a person from his due entitlement on a technical plea would be a negation of the rule of law. Here is a case where the petitioners had sought for a reference under Section 18 of the Act for higher compensation on the ground that their land had been acquired by the State. By the impugned order they have been deprived of the compensation they are entitled to or claimed by them. In my view, the trial Court should not have been so technical to observe that the appeal lies against the award and should have exercised inherent powers under Section 151 of C.P.C.
5. I. therefore, set aside the impugned order and direct the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubnswer to reconsider the application of the petitioners filed under Section 151 of C.P.C. for recalling the order dated 20.4.1992.
The Civil Revision is disposed of accordingly.