Judgment :- This is a case in which the principle enunciated by the Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Amantnga and another v. Mst.Katlji and others, (1987)2 S.C.C:107: A.I.R.1987 S.C.1353 that the doctrine of equality before law demands that all litigants, including the State as a litigant, are accorded the same treatment and the law is administered in an even handed manner is attracted. In the present case, the petitioner is a State Undertaking which is a corporation for whose benefit the lands were acquired and it is stated that the possession of the lands was taken as early as in 1981. In the proceedings for fixation of compensation, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.40 per cent. The Subordinate Judge at Tirvellore, after recording evidence, fixed the compensation at Rs.500 per cent. Aggrieved by the compensation fixed by the learned Subordinate Judge, the present petitioner filed a batch of writ petitions challenging the validity of the award on the ground that the petitioner was not made party to the Land Acquisition Original Petition proceedings before the Subordinate Judge. Their contention was accepted by this court and by an order dated 10.11.1986 the writ petitions were allowed and the award was set aside by the learned Subordinate Judge, Tirvellore was directed to dispose of the Land Acquisition original Petition proceedings on or before 28.2.1987 after impleading the present petitioner as a party to the proceedings and giving opportunity to oppose the same. Thereafter, the petitioner was impleaded as a party and evidence was being recorded. 2. The petitioner filed a petition for transfer before this Court alleging that the learned Subordinate Judge, who was hearing the Land Acquisition O.Ps. was biased against the petitioner and that he was not recording the questions put to the Land Acquisition Officer and the answers given by him when he was in the witness box. The transfer application was contested and after arguments were heard, the Land Acquisition Officer by name Sathyanarayanan, who was the Special Tahsildar, filed an affidavit in this Court describing himself as Special Tahsildar (land Acquisition) Krishna water schemes, Tiruvallur and giving his address as No.45, N.G.O. Colony, Tiruvallur, Chengalpattu District. The transfer application was contested and after arguments were heard, the Land Acquisition Officer by name Sathyanarayanan, who was the Special Tahsildar, filed an affidavit in this Court describing himself as Special Tahsildar (land Acquisition) Krishna water schemes, Tiruvallur and giving his address as No.45, N.G.O. Colony, Tiruvallur, Chengalpattu District. In that affidavit, he stated that when he was giving evidence on 8.4.1987, a question was put to him by counsel appearing for the petitioner herein as follows: “ Whether the land purchased for the church was situate within the complex area or town area” According to the affidavit of the Land Acquisition Officer, that question was disallowed by the learned Subordinate Judge and the learned Subordinate Judge also refused to record the question and the answer which he may give and then allow or disallow the question. It was also stated in the affidavit by the Land Acquisition Officer that during the course of evidence he stated that the land purchased for the Church was unfit for cultivation, but it was recorded by the Learned Judge as agricultural land and the same was corrected at his instance at the time when he was directed to sign the deposition. 3. This Court considered the affidavit filed by the Land Acquisition Officer as well as the arguments advanced on both sides and found that there was no ground for transferring the matter to any other judge. Ultimately, the following order was passed: “In the result, the petitions fail and stand dismissed. However, the Subordinate Judge is directed to give opportunity to the petitioner to recall the witness, Sathyanarayanan, Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) Krishna Water Schemes, Tiruvallur who has sworn to an affidavit and cross-examine him with reference to the location of the Church and other relevant facts and also adduce further evidence on his side and then dispose of the same according to law as expeditiously as possible as per order already passed by this Court, uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this order.” 4. Thereafter, the matter was called in the Sub Court, Tiruvallore, on 4.8.1987. it was adjourned to 7.8.1987 to enable the petitioner to examine Sathyanarayanan. On 7.8.1987 the petitioner did not take any steps for summoning the witness. He applied for adjournment and the matter was adjourned to 10.8.1987. On 10.8.1987 the learned Subordinate Judge was on leave and the matter was posted to 11.8.1987. it was adjourned to 7.8.1987 to enable the petitioner to examine Sathyanarayanan. On 7.8.1987 the petitioner did not take any steps for summoning the witness. He applied for adjournment and the matter was adjourned to 10.8.1987. On 10.8.1987 the learned Subordinate Judge was on leave and the matter was posted to 11.8.1987. Even on that date, the petitioner did not take any steps to summon the witness. He prayed for further adjournment on the ground that he had applied for special leave in the Supreme Court of India against the order of this Court dismissing the transfer petition. The matter was adjourned to 13.8.1987. On 13.8.1987 it was found that summons were served on Sathya-narayana and he was called but he was not present in court. Learned counsel for the petitioner herein prayed for adjournment and that was granted by the Court. The matter was adjourned to 14.8.1987. Again further adjournment was sought and the matter was adjourned to 10.8.1987, 18.8.1987 and 20.8.1987. On 20.8.1987 the petitioner filed an application for summoning the witness once again. That application was ordered and the matter was posted to 21.8.1987. On 21.8.1987 neither the petitioner nor his counsel was present in court. There was further adjournment and there was a prayer by the petitioner that the matter was pending before the Supreme Court of India and it would be taken for hearing on 9.9.1987 and the matter should be kept pending till then. Again, another opportunity was given by the trial court and the matter was adjourned. The Supreme Court dismissed the application for special leave on 1.9.1987 with the following observations: "We have heard learned Additional Solicitor General; We are afraid there is no ground for transfer. The petitioner, if he feels aggrieved by any order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, is at liberty to move the High Court in revision, or prefer an appeal against the eventual award or has the remedy by way of appeal under the relevant provisions contained in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Special leave petition is dismissed accordingly." 5. Even thereafter, the petitioner was not ready with the witness. It has to be mentioned at this stage that the residential address of the witness Sathyanarayana, as given by him in the affidavit filed in this Court in the transfer petition, is situated within a short distance from the Subordinate Judge’s court. The Special leave petition is dismissed accordingly." 5. Even thereafter, the petitioner was not ready with the witness. It has to be mentioned at this stage that the residential address of the witness Sathyanarayana, as given by him in the affidavit filed in this Court in the transfer petition, is situated within a short distance from the Subordinate Judge’s court. In spite of the fact that the witness not attended the court on 13.8.87 though he was served with summons after waiting till 21.9.1987, the learned Subordinate judge thought that it would not be proper for him to keep the matter pending thereafter and reserved orders in the main Land Acquisition O.Ps. Ultimately, he passed the award on 7.10.1987 after discussing the evidence on record. 6. On 2.11.1987 an application was filed by the petitioner herein for setting aside the award dated 7.10.1987 describing it as an ex parte order. In support of the application, an affidavit was filed by the Deputy General Manager (Law) of the petitioner corporation in which the following averments were made: "7. it is submitted that this Hon’ble Court should have recalled and examined Satyanarayanan as per the directions of the High Court. The said witness is an official witness employed in some other Department. Hence, the petitioner corporation requested this Hon’ble Court to grant sufficient time for securing the presence of the witnesses through proper channel. But this Hon’ble Court adjourned the cases day to day and finally closed the cases, reserving for orders on 21.9.87. The petition filed by the petitioner Corporation for reopening the case was taken up by this Hon’ble Court by 10.30 hrs on 21.9.87 and counsel representing the petitioner corporation could not reach the court in time. Hence, orders were passed on the petition that the witness was not available for examination. Since the referring officer Satyanarayanan was a party in the proceedings, this Hon’ble Court should have secured the presence of the said witness as per the directions of the High Court; but this Hon’ble Court dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioner Corporation did not produce the said referring officer. On the other hand, the petitioner Corporation was not aware that it should produce the said witness on 21.9.87. Hence, the petitioner Corporation presented a petition for re-opening the cases. On the other hand, the petitioner Corporation was not aware that it should produce the said witness on 21.9.87. Hence, the petitioner Corporation presented a petition for re-opening the cases. But the office refused to receive the same and directed counsel for the petitioner corporation to present the same in open court. While the petition was presented in the open court, the counsel for petitioner Corporation was asked to file individual petitions for each case and also urgent petitions and the counsel for the petitioner Corporation accordingly filed the petitions; but they were returned for rectifying some defects. 8. It is submitted that the defects were rectified and the cases re-presented to this Hon’ble Court. But this Hon’ble Court passed orders on 7.10.87 without examining the witnesses as directed by the High Court in Tr.C.M.P.No.8003 of 1987 in C.M.P.No.8004 of 1987 and also without giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner corporation to examine other witnesses and advance arguments. If the order passed by this Hon’ble Court on 7.10.87 is not set aside and the petitioner Corporation is not given adequate opportunity to recall the referring officer Satyanarayanan and others and examine them, public interest will be greatly prejudiced. The exparte order passed on 21.9.87 for not producing the witness Satyanarayanan is not due to negligence; but it was for the reasons as stated above. The petitioner Corporation has not been negligent, but was unable to produce the said witness for reasons as stated above, it is, therefore, just and necessary that the order passed by this Hon’ble Court on 7.10.87 is set aside and the above said L.A.O.P.No.237 of 1984 and the batch of 63 cases are disposed off on merits and in public interest." 7. The learned Subordinate judge rejected the application with an endorsement that as the award had been passed on 7.10.1987 and as the application was filed after the passing of the award, it rejected. It is against the said order rejecting the application, the present revision petition has been filed. 8. The learned Subordinate judge rejected the application with an endorsement that as the award had been passed on 7.10.1987 and as the application was filed after the passing of the award, it rejected. It is against the said order rejecting the application, the present revision petition has been filed. 8. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial court has not obeyed the direction given by this court in the transfer petition to the effect that the witness Satyanarayanan, Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition should be recalled, and an opportunity should be given to the petitioner to cross-examine him with reference to the location of the church etc., According to learned counsel, it is the duty of the court to have recalled the witness by itself and examined him and given an opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine him. I do not think so. The direction given by this Court is that the petitioner should recall the witness. It is stated in the affidavit filed in the lower court in support of the application that the witness is an official witness employed in some other department. As stated already, the said witness had filed an affidavit in this Court in the transfer petition after the arguments were over supporting the claim of the petitioner, it would not have been difficult for the petitioner to have secured and brought the witness to court, particularly when the witness is residing within a short distance from the court. 9. The record discloses that the petitioner has been adopting dilatory tactics to keep the case protracting and pending for a long time. In spite of several opportunities having been given to the petitioner, he has not taken effective steps to secure the witness and examine him. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the witness being a party to the LA.O.P.proceedings, it is the duty of the Government to have secured the presence of the said witness Sathyanarayanan, the Land Acquisition Officer in court and ought to have examined him. Whether it is the duty of the Government or the duty of the petitioner herein, the fact remains that the petitioner did not want to get along with the proceedings before the learned Subordinate Judge, but was only keen in protracting it. Whether it is the duty of the Government or the duty of the petitioner herein, the fact remains that the petitioner did not want to get along with the proceedings before the learned Subordinate Judge, but was only keen in protracting it. The learned Subordinate Judge has set out the various proceedings with the relevant dates in paragraph 11 of this award. A perusal of paragraph 11 of the award will clearly show that it is the petitioner who has to blame itself for not having examined the concerned witness Sathyanarayana. 10. In any event, the present application filed in the lower court for setting aside the award treating it as an exparte order is certainly not maintainable. The award is passed on merits after considering the evidence on record, it is not as if the petitioner has not let in any evidence at all in the L.A.O.P. proceedings. Before he filed the application for transfer of the Land Acquisition O.P., he has himself cross-examined the concerned witness. The argument that the award is an exparte order and can be treated only as an exparte order within the meaning of 0.17, R.2, Code of Civil Procedure is fallacious. The award is passed on merits after considering the entire evidence available on record and hence it would only come under explanation to R.2 and R.3 of O.17 of Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, the application filed by the petitioner in the lower court to set aside the award as if it was passed ex parte is not maintainable. 11. More so, the revision petition in this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the award is a nullity inasmuch as the learned Subordinate Judge has not carried out the directions given by this court, he relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Kauslya Devi v.Land Acquisition Officer, Ahemedabad,A.I.R.1984 S.C.892:(1984)2 S.C.C.324. In that case, the Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Bombay High Court and sent the case back to that High Court for fresh disposal. After remand, neither party had any further evidence to let in. In that case, the Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Bombay High Court and sent the case back to that High Court for fresh disposal. After remand, neither party had any further evidence to let in. Regarding that aspect, the Bombay High Court stated as follows: “.........Since there is no change in the record and no additional evidence is offered and the High Court judgment was pronounced on the evidence already recorded, we see no reason to differ in any way with well considered earlier judgment of this court. We, therefore, declare that a copy of that judgment which will be our substantive judgment, be placed on record as the judgment of this court after remand by the Supreme Court." The Supreme Court, when the matter went again before them, held that the earlier judgment having been set aside, that judgment for all intents and purposes had become non-existent, and, therefore, the Bombay High Court was wrong in merely attaching a copy of the judgment before remand with the order passed after remand as their substantive judgment In those circumstances, the Supreme Court held that the Bombay High Court had not followed the directions issued by the Supreme Court as an appellate court and hence the judgment passed on the second occasion by the Bombay High Court was a nullity. The facts of the case have no resemblance whatever to the facts of the present case. 12. Learned counsel relies upon the decision of a Division Bench of this court in M/s.M.A.V.R.Nata raja Nadar and sons, Vipudungap by its partner and 2 others v. M/s.P.B.K.Nadar & Co., Pattiveer-anpatti by Partner, 1985 T.L.N.J.221 for the proposition that and order passed after considering the evidence will still be an ex parte order if one of the parties remained absent. In that case, the plaintiff’s evidence was closed and the defendants did not go in to the witness box. The defendants applied for adjournment and the case was adjourned to a particular date. As the defendants were not ready on the adjourned date, the court proceeded on the footing that they were adopting delaying tactics and passed a decree under O.17, R.3, Code of Civil Procedure. The defendants applied for adjournment and the case was adjourned to a particular date. As the defendants were not ready on the adjourned date, the court proceeded on the footing that they were adopting delaying tactics and passed a decree under O.17, R.3, Code of Civil Procedure. But the Division Bench of this court took the view that it was still an order passed under O.17, R.2, Code of Civil Procedure and it was only an exparte order and not a judgment on merits within the meaning of 0.17, R.3, Code of Civil Procedure. In that case as between two contesting parties, one party had not let in any evidence. This is not a case like that. In this case, the petitioner herein and the Government are ranged on the one side and the claimant on the other. Admittedly the Government had closed its evidence. The petitioner had before the filing of the transfer petition elicited evidence in its support by examining Satyanarayanan, the Land Acquisition Officer. Apart from that, as seen from paragraph 11 of the award, the petitioner had examined three witnesses in April, 1987. Further, the evidence which was let in by the Government in this case tantamounts to evidence on behalf of the petitioner. The enquiry is one to ascertain the value of the property acquired. As regards the value of the property, the petitioner sails with the Government. Hence, the ruling of the aforesaid Division Bench of this court cannot be invoked by the petitioner in this case. 13. There is no merit whatever in the revision; petition, it is really unfortunate that a State Undertaking should indulge in dilatory tactics in a proceeding intended for fixing the just compensation payable to the citizen who is deprived of his property. The Government having initiated the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act is bound to pay compensation as prescribed therein. But, it is not open to the beneficiary of the acqui-sition to play with the court. That is why I started this judgment with the observation of the Su- preme Court that the doctrine of equality before law demands that all litigants, including the state as a litigant, are accorded the same treatment and the law is administered in an even-handed manner. The order of the Subordinate Judge rejecting the frivolous application of the petitioner without numbering it is quite valid and proper. 14. The order of the Subordinate Judge rejecting the frivolous application of the petitioner without numbering it is quite valid and proper. 14. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsel’s fee Rs.500.