THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO L.A.A.S.M.P.No.1286 of 2010 & L.A.A.S No. 727 of 2011 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) The application viz., LAASMP No.1286 of 2010 is filed to condone the delay in preferring the appeal by the claimants against the judgment and decree dated 4.7.2001 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, in O.P.No.80 of 1993 on referring the matter under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram closed the above O.P. on the ground that the claimants are not evincing any interest and their absence itself shows the recalcitrant trend and attitude of the claimants in diligently pursuing the reference. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants filed I.A.No.784 of 2001 under Order 9 Rule 9 of CPC to set aside the order in the O.P. But the same was dismissed by the Court below. Hence, the claimants carried the matter in revision viz., CRP No.1976 of 2004 wherein this Court having observed that the petitioners-claimants did not file any copy of the order through which the OP was disposed of and unless it is established that the O.P. was dismissed for default, I.A. under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC cannot be maintained, dismissed the CRP granting liberty to the petitioners-claimants to pursue the other remedies in accordance with law. On dismissal of the said revision, the petitioners- claimants filed the present appeal questioning the order of the Court below in the above O.P., along with an application to condone the delay. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Government Pleader for appeals. It is now well settled that the reference made by the Collector under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act cannot be dismissed for default nor can be closed, as it will have the effect of refusing to answer the reference. The Apex Court in Khazan Singh (dead) by L.Rs., Vs. Union of India[1] held as follows: “Once the reference is made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, the Civil Court has to pass an award in answer to the reference made by the Collector under Section 18 of the Act. If any party to whom notice has been served by the Civil Court did not participate in the inquiry it would only be at his risk because an award would be passed perhaps to the detriment of the concerned party. But non-participation of any party would not confer jurisdiction on the Civil Court to dismiss the reference for default or to refuse to answer the reference.” In the above said judgment, the Supreme Court also approved the view taken by Orissa High Court in Jogi Sahu Vs. Collector (AIR 1991 Orissa 283) that an application for restoration of the reference can be entertained under Section 151 of the Code albeit the same was filed quoting Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court (1st cited) and the facts and circumstances of the case, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the impugned order passed by the Court below closing the reference is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Court below to decide the reference afresh in accordance with law. However, if any enhancement is made, the claimants are not entitled to interest for the period from 4th July, 2001 till today, for which course, the learned Counsel for the petitioners-claimants agreed. Accordingly, LAASMP is ordered and the appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the Court below and the matter is remanded to the Court below to dispose of the same, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. _________________ (A. Gopal Reddy, J) ________________ (K.S. Appa Rao, J) 2nd August, 2011 Note: CC in one week B/O NN THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO L.A.A.S.M.P.No.1286 of 2010 and L.A.A.S. No.727 of 2011 (Judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) 02.08.2011 [1] AIR 2002 SC 726