IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 663 of 2008 Date of Decision: March 25, 2009 Ashwani Kumar and others … Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others.. … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND. Present : Mr. Anil Kshetarpal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Jayender S. Chandail, Addl. A.G., Haryana. ***** S.D. Anand, J. Award No. 15 dated 15.03.1997 was announced by the Land Acquisition Collector in respect of the acquisition of certain land. The petitioners before this Court, who are legal representatives of the original land owner – Roshan Lal, filed a plea before the Land Acquisition Collector for a reference to the District Court. That plea was filed on 09.09.1993. The Land Acquisition Collector forwarded the reference to the District Court which proceeded to decide the matter ex-parte. C.R. No. 663 of 2008 The petitioners (legal representatives of the original land owner) filed a plea under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the recall of the order dated 08.01.1998 vide which the reference was decided ex-parte. The averment, made in the course thereof, was that the original land owner died on 22.02.1995; whereas the reference was received by the District Court on 04.11.1995. On account of the death of Roshan Lal, no notice came to be issued to the deceased landowner or the legal representatives of Roshan Lal, two out of them were minor at that time (their date of birth is 15.6.1982 and 08.01.1984). The petition was contested by the respondents by challenging its maintainability and averring that the petitioners were throughout aware of the reference having been forwarded to the Court and their plea for enhancement had been rightfully dismissed for want of prosecution. It was also averred that the present petitioners / legal representatives of Roshan Lal did not apply for impleadment in that capacity within time and that they are trying to take undue advantage of their own fault. The learned District Court had framed the following issues: “1. Whether Ashwani Kumar is only LR of deceased petitioner No.1 Roshan Lal and impugned order dated 8.1.98 is liable to be recalled? OPR 2. Whether the application is time barred? OPR 3. Whether the application is not maintainable? OPR 4. Relief.” 2 C.R. No. 663 of 2008 Issue Nos. 1 and 2 were jointly taken up and disposed of against the petitioners. Under issue No.3 too, the finding was adverse to the petitioners. The essential grievance of the petitioners is that the impugned order deserves outright invalidation as no notice, at all, came to be issued to them. The learned State counsel argues, in the context, that the notice had been issued to Sh. S.P.S. Nagla, Advocate, through whom the reference had been filed before the Land Acquisition Collector. I find myself in agreement with the plea on behalf of the petitioners. There is not even an averment that the reference Court issued any notice of the reference to the petitioners. The fact that Sh. S.P.S. Nagla, Advocate was called and he pleaded want of instructions is irrelevant for determination of the point in the context because Sh. Nagla is not proved to have been authorised for appearance before the reference Court. Sh. Nagla had filed a plea for enhancement only before the Land Acquisition Collector. The petitioners, two out of whom were minors, were entitled to the issuance of a notice by the reference Court as well. In the absence thereof, the ex-parte proceedings could not have been ordered against them. The finding recorded by the learned Trial Court shall stand reversed. The matter shall be listed before the learned Trial Court for a decision afresh in the light of the observations made by this Court. The parties, through their learned counsel, are directed 3 C.R. No. 663 of 2008 to appear before the learned Trial Court on 02.04.2009. Disposed of accordingly. March 25, 2009 ( S.D. Anand ) vkd Judge 4