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