•iti •i;' i» ^•.^'•^y- M'i .y IN ®S;.,lNN:*BI,B:HI<m';QQ^^ :©y,l/GHKA tI-Se3^SH;:A® ^YI^ A^ry|<2^it^...,:;^ Q.R. N@. €Em^ f^mmOVS^/S il®©.,P,^.VAaUBD;RS. ,31788^ •E.A. AWARS. /^Q©S; m^&ev^ :lt.S« •t,,^'!^-:^ ^LRS 0».DSCTASBB WPLI GWTS ^^^ g,^ :tontanar Agrawat- ^^ ,.^^ '^' c^ •^^>^°^ aN^^fe ;8'§:'yea.ra» ! RaVi.n<f3?a sA .I^sitee. Satxi Ram Kumaxk^Ag3rawal^-;lafe<a^a^ufc yea^a Arvind a/^ &ate Shti Ram Kumfe Agrawal^.' a@^d.afe©ut-3@-y€axs,; &nfe^ Remx A gjrawal W/D Kam . Km?ial •Agjrawal:r • a®e<a ateut •38. yea3ra<,., ...:'•. -'/ Atl .:K/a- I.M1$ahhak ,Na^ar. ('Peaaheys^ ,0@3.@ny)': <0pg>. l:QQ.r<a@n), '.IXirg 33is'tte.' Dujrg. ., •' , . .. :':• ' . .:':••'• ;• • •• Vs. NQN-s^P^ZISANt's. ' ^^^^€tat^Gf"Ghha-fcteL!sga.cii: fhrough ©©lleQjs&r/Burg GSVIL Revq:SI© UN©E!B.©g©%3:0N;ia,5; .QQBS .©y.®V3:L.'P,R0©SZ3EJM' 3.9?@r (ANEBrOES A©t2002) . ': ,.• . ^ -^ XI-HC-22 3:n^r'^r fqtlctl $^^i<=t» <ii^a € ^ '3^c[ ^NH^, ^nl^^Ko, [c^ni^y 3n^?r xra^? .i. ^l^€fll fN^sr' 37T^?T'^fTW^Tf^T 7-12-2004 Shri y<xshwont Twoan with cni^{<n<'flvi ^fHoT'? f^^l <P»i^s< ^3?rf^TH3n^T ahri Amiyakant Thwri, counael for the petitioners. Shri J.D. Ba^ai, ^ovt. Advoc|ite for the State. Heard. A portion of tand out of l|he tand owned by late Ramkumar A9rowa( comprising Khasra No.255^11 was acqujred by Ihe State for the purpose of widening Kie road. fThe Uind Acquisitwn Offieerafter completmg -the forniatities, passe^ an owwd on 26-9-1989 Jn Lond AcquisrKon Case No.20-A/82 of 8< Rs.31.787.65/-. Late Ramkumcr ^ p87 ond fixed the eompentfation of Igrawaj being dissati<fjeel wilfi the compenMrtiQn fixed/filed wi applic^tion yndcr Seetion 18 of Ihe Uand Acqutei-Hon Act raquesting the Lamjd Acquiation Officer tu ne-fer the matter to Ihe Civil Court conterildmg ttwt he nwst be pcud mope compwisalwn. The roferenc®w^ takwi on the fita by th« 2nd Additional Djstrict Judge, Durg. sujbsequently said Rcunkumar Agroawal died on 6-12-1996 and lt»pres^it petitior»rs came on record c^ Legal Representativ&s. By an order dated 17-2-200(3 the soud referenee Court cbsed the cef&renc®on the ground thdrtj the cfcumonts even after several years have not toten steps to te-l| hi evjdence to siAstantiate their [Tft^'^R^ XI-HC.22 "S^ ^ll^ld^l, ^TTl^^Ko, f^<ni<iy 3TT^?T 'q^? WW^I 5bHI<=h •^ 20ft3 '^re^T' STT^T^T f<tii<=h ^ni^r 5b^i<^ <4^a ^ -+- 37T^T'^IT^R ^rf^T ^^ ^ co^e. Being aggrieved by the said oi|der of 1fie 2 Addjtional District Judge, burg, the pre^nt reviskm pe^itiwi has tewi fiied. Leamed coungel flppearin9 f submission namefy that the ob«rvei|lwnof tte refertnce Court- 1+iat the cksa'nuants fcuted to take ste^ paten+ty wror»9which te evident fro^ s to exoimirMB the witnesses is p the docunients availabte before th®Courf. 5econdly, even assummg in oral and documentary evidence a reference, the referen< that the Iwd owrwsrs faited to tet |to substantwrte their cas®./-rtiis ^ourt ccvwot pass the impttjgned order vriiich yi effect is a dismis^P arder for not prosecyttng 'rtie matter by <etl"in9 in oral caid docun^ntary evid&nce. Uswvwd counsel furrtwr aibmits -riiat the Court- sSnos. wi+h the material^ avaitabte on recot|d* In support" of hte contention, tearn&d counsel pkaad nefemce wi a 3^ in the case of Khazan Slnah V. Of-course, leanwd counsel f< •the burden is sotely on Ihe petilione^s/lanGllorcls to salisfy Ihe Gourt Ihat -the compensation fixed by -th< caid ois they hwe not let in wa{ disdiarge -the «xki burden, 1tie refe^ence Court id perfecriy nght m dismissing the peference* cbM(<rl^r1 ^l^df *? 'feT^ ^^K '^s^ri^w^n^T r Itie petitioners macte twofold tel have Gonsicksred the refererwe ((uling reportsd in 2002 AIft SCW <ynton <rf India. ir the State would contend ihat Land Acquisition Officer is tow arri <dbcumentary evidenoe to T^ -qT^? <;• XI-HC-22 3TI^?T'^T f<'ticb 3T1^T ^^{icb <ii^a ^-. €' 4- '3^? v^lt^lld<ll, ^•al^<i<o, 1 T) 3n^?T JV^K x.^-./a^. ^ITHdl 5b^lich •^ 2003> i^^T' Court- reported in 2002 AIR SC^ chl^i<rl<lflr1 TTIT^Tf'? 'fe1^ <fa<^i< i7 ^Tf^W ^n^T ThtS Court perused •rti^s juc^mCTit of th®Hon1»teSuprenie 386 fSupra) and this Court is ef •tfie view -that the decision of -riiatl focts of Ihe present case. Jn pcr^ has ruled as under:- case woutd ayuou'ely apply for Ihe i"7 of the said judgment the Court- ttThe provteions cdbove ^ub^m&d woutd thu$ nuAe it cleor that 1+ie CMI Ccjurl- has to pass an C »ard in ansimr to the refere^ce nMsde by Ihe Collectw undfer 5.18 of 1he Act-.If cmy p<rty to wdiom notice has been sei'wd by| l+ie Civil Court djd <wt part-idpate in Ihe inqi|iry it would only be dt his risk because cn cnwoird the detriment of -the particjpattdn of any woukl be |xies<ed perhcps to concemed party. But non- porty woutd not confer jurisdictjon on the (fivil Court- to dismiss the reference far default,11! That bein9 1+ie isettle^l tegal posftion, this Courfr hd»to set-aside Kie order passed by -the \reference Court- dated 17-2-2003 and direct the scud referCTice Couj^ to duspose of -Hie reference in accorAmoe with faw. Aecordtngfyl there wilt bs on order to ^iat effect. Needtess to nwntkm 1+iat ifie referen<»Court is duty beund to permit the parttes to tet in onjil and cloaimentcxry evMence, The reference Court- is directed t@ disp|&se of the matter within a period of 6 mon1+»s from flw Aitps Qf_pe^ibtof^?pY_®^thls order. Bolti the 1 [Tft^ ^fe^ €•XI-HC-22 S^T^T ^i<=h 3^^T $bl4icti <-<f^a T^ ^l^lld^l, ^Til<i<i<o, IG«yii^y 31T^T X[^? ^.:^.t../.3...z..........^ 200^ 'I^^T' ^THCfll 5b*< ^TT^I ^IT^R ^rf^T chHi<rt<4lT1 'WTOf ^ f^^ ^^K '^3ti^P?3TI^T Subbu parties shall fully co-operate with | 1+ie above directions. Wi-riii thedirections aforesaitl, Parlies are entitled for certi|fied copy pfAi&Acdeii. Itie reference Court to comply with , th^ revteion stwids dispased of. sd/- ChiefJustice +-