ti'N'<lJ1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (Art. 227) No.1^65 of2011 PETITIONERS/: (Plaintiffs)/ (Applicants) />y^ ^''i,'.^y ^y^ <x-^ ^:^ <;' RESPONDENTS; '»s \ i%L2t' j;'&%.^SftiJ. 1^^-^ ^TsB^y lf. Raj Kumar Sharraa, aged about 46 years. 2.' Shiv Kumar Sharma, aged about 42 years. 3. Vinod Kum.ar Sharma, aged about 33 years. 4. Dhadheech Kuraar Sharma, Aged about 29 years. All are sons of Late Omkar Prasad Sharma, Caste Brahman, R/o Village Akaltara, Tahsil Akaltara, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) - Versus - r/ State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Collector, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 2." Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Karranala Reservoir Project, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT/WRITS, DIRECTIONS ETC., IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, CERTIORARI AND/OR ANY OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OF LIKE NATURE The petitioners, above named, most humbly and respectfully beg to submit as under: - ';;'. •^"••;it...i.-..-...„; ,.i...^t=a3ii.ft, ^v mGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B: Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition F227) No. 1665/2011 PETITIONERS RE8PONDENTS Raj Knmar Sharma and others Versus State of Chattisgarh and another Writ Petition f227) No. 1666^011 PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS Raj Kjimar Sharma and others Vwsus State of Chattisgarh and anottier Writ Petition (22Tt No. 1667/2011 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Vinod&nnar Versus State of Chattfagarh and anoAer Appearance: Shri Malay Shrivastava, counsel for the petitioner(s). Shri Vinay Harit, Deputy Advocate General for the State. WRIT PETITION UNDER ART1CLE 227 OF THE CONSTmjTION OF INDIA ORALORDER (28.03.2011) By this common order W.P. (227) No. 1665/2011, W.P. (227) No. 1666/2011 andW.P. (227)No. 1667/2011 arefinaUydisposedof at admission stage. (2) In all the three writ petitions leamed referenee Court who is dealing with the reference under Section 18 ofthe Land Acquisition ,^'f^. /^ ^ j' ^ ^ta» \J^ 2- Act, 1894 has closed the claimants right to lead evidence after rejecting the respective petitioner's applicatibn for adjoumment to produce evidence. (3) Leamed court below has observed that sufiScient opportunities have already been allowed to the claimants to produce evidenee and inspite ofhaving been allowed six opportunities, the claimants have failed to produce evidence. It has also been observed that Ae application for adjoumment is not supported wilfa the medical certificate regarding fi-acture ofleg ofclaimant Raj Kumar. (4) Leamed counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the application itselfit was menticuied that certificate shall be presCTited on the next date ofhearing. He would submrt Ihat the said cerrificate has been annexed vrith this writ petition as Annexure P-2, wherein it is clearly mentioned that Ifae claimant Raj Kumar suffered fi-acture of right ankle and was advised complete bed rest for 8-10 weeks w.e.f. 5/01/2011. On perusal of the application Annexure P-3 and Ifae medical eertificate Annexure P-2, it would appear tiiat claimant Raj Kumar was in fact indisposed because he had sufifered fiacture of right ankle. The certificate has been issued by the doctor on 14/03/2011 and thus ifae said certificate was not available on Ifae date ofhearing i.e. on 24/02/2011. (5) In the matter of G.P. Srivastava Vs. R.K. Raizada and ,odiers (2000) 3 SCC 54 and in the matter of State Bank of India Vs. Chandra Govindji (KM.) (2000) 8 SCC 532 the Hon'ble ;/".-*3. "1:'.-. ^ ''.'"' ''-^ '•:: i;:? B . _ . ,,. " l| Wi::^SS'*l ; 'c:^ -3- Supreme Court has held that while dealiflg witfi a prayer for adjoumment Ae Court is not entided to consider tfie adjoumment sought by Ifae party on previous dates of hearing because the sa.me having been allowed, Court was satisfied about fte reason for seeking adjournment. (6) Following has been laid dowa in paragraph 7 ofthe judgment in the matter ofState Bank of hidia Vs. diandra Gowndji (KM.) (supra): "7. In ascertaining whether a party had reasonable opportimity to put forward his case or not, one should not ordinarily go beyond the date on which adjoumment is sought for. The earlier adjoumment, if any, granted would certainly be for reasonable grounds and that aapect need not be once agmn examined ifon the date on which adjoummeat is sought for the party concemed has a reasonable ground. The mere fact that in the past adjoumments had been sought for would not be ofany materiality. If the adjoumment had been sought for on flimsy grounds the same would have been rejected. Therefore, in our view, the High Court as well as the learned District Judge and the Rent Controller have all missed the essence oftiie matter." (7) In view ofthe above and in view ofthe fact that tiie claimant Raj Kumar has in fact suffered fi^cture ofright aakle, this Court is of the considered opinion that the claimants are entided to one opportunity to lead evidence. It is therefore directed tiiat the court below shall fix one date for production of witnesses on behalf of TTO- s^s^^^SSsEiiiXilSSSv^tiecsssS'. ^•v-^. .f'.i'^ l.!?. ' % lljte^ffS^ 1 -^-- claimants and tfae claimant shall lead his entire evidence on the said date. No furdier opportunity Aall be allowed to the claimant. (8) With this observation, the writ petitions stand altowed. (9) Certified eopy be supplied to both tfae parties within a week. (10) A copy oftiiis order may be placed on the record ofabove writ petitions. Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge ^i/u^/ •V s ssasKS^u^ ^SS^S'S'S^^^^^sSss 'SSfSI^^SCSssstis