Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 301 (HP)

YOGESH VERMA v. STATE OF H. P.

2003-10-09

A.K.GOEL

body2003
JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Admit. Issue notice. Service of notice is waived by Mr. J.K. Verma, learned Deputy Advocate General on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 and on his instructions, Mr. M.S. Chandel, learned Advocate General has put in appearance. Mr. C.N. Singh/Advocate appears for respondent No. 3. 3. It was jointly prayed by the learned Counsel for the parties that looking to the controversy involved in this case, it may be heard today itself. Accordingly, this matter has been heard finally and is disposed of as such. 4. Admitted facts of this case are that Land Reference No. 111-S of 1998 was pending before the learned District Judge, Shimla. All reference petitioners were represented by late Shri V.C. Guleria, Advocate. He died in the month of July, 2001. During the course of the pendency of the reference petition, petitioners had led evidence in the Court of District Judge, Shimla. 5. In the aforesaid background, two applications were filed under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC. One was for bringing on record the legal representatives of petitioner No. 7 Devi Saran Verma and the other was for impleadment of the legal representatives of petitioner No. 13 Shri Med Ram. Both these applications after contest as well as after recording evidence have been dismissed by the learned Court below. A perusal of the impugned order shows that though it has been held that Limitation Act does not apply to proceedings in a reference under the Land Acquisition Act, but desipte this conclusion, learned Court below was of the view that application to bring on record legal representatives should have been filed within reasonable time. That having not been done, both the applications have been dismissed. 6. In this behalf, it may be appropriate to notice that Yogesh son of Devi Saran and Balwant Singh son of Med Ram appeared as AWs 1 and 2. According to AW-1, after the death of his father, he contacted late Shri V.C. Guleria, Advocate and handed over to him certificates of death, as well as of legal heirship so that the legal representatives could be brought on record. According to this witness, his signatures were obtained on blank paper and both certificates were retained by late Shri V.C. Guleria, Advocate. His counsel lafer on died. According to this witness, his signatures were obtained on blank paper and both certificates were retained by late Shri V.C. Guleria, Advocate. His counsel lafer on died. Therefore, he had to change the lawyer He was informed by his newly appointed counsel that legal representatives have not substituted. It is in this background that application was filed by the legal representatives of Devi Saran. 7. Similarly Balwant Singh also stated that his father died on 14.12.1999. He also placed on record death certificate as well as of legal heirship certificate. This witness also stated that he had gone to Shri V.C. Guleria, Advocate after the death of his late father to bring on record the legal representatives. However, Shri Guleria advised this witness to bring legal heirs certificate as well as death certificate, which were later on delivered by the witness to his counsel somewhere in the month of February, 2000. Mr. Guleria further held out that necessary application will be filed. Mr. Guleria died, as noted hereinabove. 8. Once learned trial Court had come to the conclusion that Limitation Act does not apply to proceedings under Land Acquisition Act in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Sntt. Dhani Devi v. Collector, Land Acquisition, AIR 1982 HP 42, it is not understood from where the concept of filing the application within reasonable time was imported. Statements of AWs 1 and 2 clearly established the stand of applicants in both applications. KW-1, Satish Chand Sood, Executive Engineer, did not dislodge the statement of AWs 1 and 2 on the question of both of them having contacted Shri Guleria, as stated by them. Thus I am satisfied that the learned Court below was not justified in dismissing both the applications having not been filed within time. 9. This matter is further no more res-integra in view of the decision of this Court in Thakur Dass v. Land Acquisition Collector and others, Latest HLJ 2003 (HP) 13, wherein after following the decision of the Supreme Court in Khazan Singh (dead) By Lrs. v. Union of India, (2002) 2 SCC 242, it has held that non-participation of any party would not confer jurisdiction on the Civil Court to dismiss the Reference for default of appearance. District Judge was under legal obligation to decide the reference on merits in the absence of either party. 10. v. Union of India, (2002) 2 SCC 242, it has held that non-participation of any party would not confer jurisdiction on the Civil Court to dismiss the Reference for default of appearance. District Judge was under legal obligation to decide the reference on merits in the absence of either party. 10. How the impugned order of learned District Judge could be sustained, learned Advocate General was not able to satisfy. Though he urged that the impugned order needs to be upheld. This plea is wholly misconceived and has no substance. There was no question of abatement in the Land Reference, that too in its entirety as has been ordered vide impugned order. 11. Faced with this situation, Advocate General, alternatively submitted that so far Reference of deceased petitioners No. 7 and 13 was concerned, it has been rightly held to have abated and no exception can be taken to its rejection. Again this is an argument raised simply to be rejected in view of the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra (dead) by LRs. v. Pramod Gupta (Smt.) (Dead) by LRs. and others (and other connected cases), (2003) 3 SCC 272. 12. No other point is urged. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this revision petition is allowed and as a result of it, the order dated 9.10.2002 passed by the learned District Judge, Shimla is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, both the applications under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC filed by the legal representatives of deceased reference petitioners No. 7 and 13 are allowed. Thus the persons named in the said two applications are ordered to be substituted in place of the respective reference petitioners. Learned District Judge, Shimla is directed to now proceed further in the matter in accordance with law. It has been stated by Mr. M.L. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioners that he will place on record amended memo of parties on the next date of hearing before the Court. Since record is here, parties through their counsel are directed to appear before District Judge, Shimla on 22.11.2003. He is directed to dispose of the reference petition with utmost expedition and despatch, of course, keeping in view his docket. No fresh notice for appearance will be issued by the court below, even if it is not holding the court on the date fixed. He is directed to dispose of the reference petition with utmost expedition and despatch, of course, keeping in view his docket. No fresh notice for appearance will be issued by the court below, even if it is not holding the court on the date fixed. In such a situation it shall be the duty of the parties to appear on the date fixed, as also on the next date that may be fixed for proper order. Petition disposed of.