JUDGMENT : A.K. RATH, J. 1. This petition challenges the order dated 11.04.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Athamalik in C.M.A. No. 50 of 2011. By the said order, learned trial court rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 4 C.P.C. for restoration of L.A. Misc. Case No. 90 of 2011 to file. 2. The petitioner is a land oustee. A piece of land belonging to the petitioner was acquired by the State of Orissa. The petitioner filed an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 before the Land Acquisition Collector, Angul for higher compensation. The said case was referred to the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Athamalik and registered as L.A. Misc. Case No. 90 of 2001. While the matter stood thus, the matter was dismissed for default. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application under Order 9 Rule 4 C.P.C. for restoration, which was eventually dismissed. 3. Heard Mr. B.R. Barick, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.S.C. for the opposite parties. 4. The sole question arises for consideration as to whether a reference made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 can be dismissed for non-prosecution? 5. The subject matter of dispute is no more res integra. An identical matter came up for consideration before this Court in the case of Jogi Sahu and Another vs. Collector, Cuttack, AIR 1991 Orissa 283. This Court held: “xxx xxx xxx When a claimant does not accept the award of the Collector, on an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short ‘the Act’) being filed the Collector makes a reference being made, the claimant does not become plaintiff or petitioner before the Court. As provided under Section 20 of the Act, the Court has to serve notice on the claimant on whose application reference has been made under Section 18 of the Act. After the notice, the Court is required to make an award in terms of Section 26(1) of the Act and this award is deemed to be a decree under Section 26(2). It is, therefore, impermissible to dismiss a case for default. After the notice, the Court is required to make an award in terms of Section 26(1) of the Act and this award is deemed to be a decree under Section 26(2). It is, therefore, impermissible to dismiss a case for default. The dismissal for default is not in terms of Order 9, Rule 8, C.P.C. since the land acquisition reference cannot be dismissed for nonappearance of the claimant under Order 9, Rule 8, C.P.C. and Section 53 of the Act shall not operate to this case. This view has been consistently taken by several High Courts. (See Abdul Karim v. State of Madhya Pradesh through the Collector, Bilaspur, AIR 1964 MP 171 ; B. Munda v. D. Oraon, AIR 1970 Patna 209 and S.S. Sahai v. State, AIR 1974 Patna 176. This Court had also occasion to consider the question and a similar view was expressed. (See Gopal Charan Sahu v. Collector, Cuttack, 1976 (1) CWR 1). In that case it was also held that the provisions of Order 9, Rule 8, C.P.C. were not applicable. It was held that an application for restoration under Order 9, Rule 8, C.P.C. is not maintainable; but the impugned order can be set aside by invoking the inherent powers of the Court under Section 151, C.P.C. Therefore, the reference Court was justified in rejecting the applications which were filed under Order 9, Rule 9, C.P.C. but the petitions under Section 151, C.P.C. were maintainable. Such a petition was maintainable as held by this Court in Gopal Charan Sahu’s Case (supra). The view expressed in Gopal Chran Sahu’s Case (supra) was followed in Nabaratna Khamari v. State of Orissa, (1985) 60 CLT 234. A person whose land was being acquired is entitled to compensation therefor and this entitlement should not be denied except on very compelling reasons. To deprive a person from his due entitlement on a technical plea would be a negation of the rule of law…..” (Emphasis laid) 6. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of this Court in the case of Jogi Sahu (supra) that a land acquisition reference cannot be dismissed for non-prosecution, the learned trial court fell into patent error in dismissing L.A. Misc. Case No. 90 of 2011 for non-prosecution. Accordingly, the order dated 11.04.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Athamalik in C.M.A. No. 50 of 2011 is quashed. L.A. Misc. Case No. 90 of 2011 for non-prosecution. Accordingly, the order dated 11.04.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Athamalik in C.M.A. No. 50 of 2011 is quashed. L.A. Misc. Case No. 90 of 2011 is restored to file. Learned trial court shall do well to dispose of the same expeditiously. The petition is disposed of.