IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA R.F.A. No. 19/2010 Date of decision: 25. 8. 2010 Rajeev Bazwaria and others ….Appellants Versus State of H.P. and another ……Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 no For the Appellant: Mr. Suneet Goel, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Anshul Bansal, Addl. Advocate General with Mr. J. S. Rana, Assistant Advocate General. Surinder Singh J. (Oral) CMP(M) No. 103 of 2010. There is 71 days delay in filing the instant appeal. For the reasons mentioned in the application duly supported by the affidavit, constitute ‘sufficient cause’ to condone the delay. As such the application is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Disposed of. CMP No. 63/2010. 2. This application of LR’s is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Disposed of. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. yes - 2 - RFA 19 of 2010. 3. The parties agree that the matter can be disposed of at the admission stage itself. 4. Facts in brief are that the land of Shri Amar Nath Bazwaria, father of the appellants herein was acquired by the respondents for public purpose, i.e., for expansion of the forest area. The Land Acquisition Collector (Urban), Shimla pronounced the award on 20th April, 2007. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned award, reference was made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 , in short ‘the Act’ for seeking enhancement. The learned Reference Court dismissed the reference petition on the ground that after the death of original petitioner Shri Amar Nath Bazawaria, his son Rajeev Bazwaria was appearing as his general power of attorney without bringing the legal representatives of the deceased on record. Thus, the learned Reference Court concluded that the petitioner and his progeny are satisfied with the compensation assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector. 5. Feeling dissatisfied by the impugned order, the instant appeal has been field by the legal representatives/heirs of the deceased who were not - 3 - brought on record when the matter was pending before the learned Reference Court. 6. The claim of the petitioner in the instant case is that the Reference Court could not have dismissed the petition. It was disclosed on 3rd June, 2009 that Shri Amar Nath had died on 9th April, 2009 and time was sought to bring his legal representatives on record. Till 22.7.2009, no steps were taken but on the said date, impugned order was passed by the learned Reference Court, that too, within a period of 150 days during the currency of the period, meant for setting aside the abatement. 7. In Collector Land Acquisition NHPC versus Khewa Ram and others Latest HLJ 2007 (HP) 270 this court, based upon the law declared by the apex Court held that the court is bound to decide the reference petition under the Land Acquisition Act even in the absence of the parties and where there is a sole claimant and he dies, then obviously if the court is unaware about the death of the claimant it will proceed to decide the reference on the material placed on record before it. In such a case, if either the legal heirs of - 4 - the claimant or the acquiring authority files an appeal, then the award of the District Judge will have to be set aside and the reference proceedings deemed to have been abated. The questions whether the abatement should be set aside and whether the delay, if any, should be condoned are questions to be decided by the District Judge alone and not by the appellate Court. 8. Therefore, in view of the above, impugned award is set aside and the case is remanded back to the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Tract Court), Shimla to decide the factum of abatement, if any. Parties are hereby directed to be present before the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) Shimla on 10.9.2010. The appeal is disposed of. Copy dasti. August 25, 2010 (Surinder Singh),J (cm)