Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1897 (RAJ)

Nawab Aftab Ali Khan v. State of Rajasthan

2018-09-11

ALOK SHARMA

body2018
JUDGMENT Alok Sharma, J. - Counsel for the claimant-petitioner (hereafter 'the claimant') submitted that the State Government initiated land acquisition proceedings in District Tonk. In pursuance thereof, the claimant's land was acquired in the year 1995. On 29.11.1996, an award came to be passed. The claimant submitted the objections in regard thereto, whereupon a reference was made by the State Government under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereafter 'the Act of 1894') to the District Judge, Tonk and is numbered 104/1997. Evidence has been recorded. The matter continues to be pending thereafter even though 21 years have lapsed and is being stalled without good cause merely because of casual adjournments on the mere askance of the non claimants. It has been prayed that the court below in the circumstances be directed to decide Reference No. 104/1997 and pass final order thereon expeditiously. 2. The prayer of the counsel for the claimant is quite reasonable. 3. The reference filed in the year 1997 pending adjudication lapsing more than 21 years from its filing is a matter of concern for this Court. It is axiomatic that justice delayed is justice denied. Inordinate delays in adjudication of rights thereof cannot be countenanced. In the circumstances, I would direct the trial court to dispose of the reference under Section 18 of the Act of 1894 in issue pending before it as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of three months from the next date fixed before it. 4. To effectuate this order, the trial court should adhere the observation of the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Shiv Cotex v. Tirgun Auto Plast (P) Ltd. & Ors. (2011) 9 SCC 678 and the provisions of Order 17, Rule 1 CPC. Adjournment in the reference under Section 18 of the Act of 1894 not be granted without just cause and should, when warranted be by a reasoned order on a proper application being filed to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Further miscellaneous applications be decided as far as possible within three days of filing and when found frivolous be visited with costs even exemplary as a measure of the court regulating its proceedings without their being hijacked by mischievous resort to the otherwise salutary provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. 5. With these directions, this petition is disposed of.