JUDGMENT Vivek Singh Thakur, J. (Oral) - This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order passed on 28.3.2011 by learned Additional District Judge, Mandi, whereby name of Chamaru Ram, predecessor-in-interest of appellants, has been ordered to be deleted on the ground that said Chamaru Ram had expired on 01.06.1999 prior to receipt of the reference petition in Court on 19.2.2003. 2. Relevant facts for adjudication of present appeal are that the respondent/State had acquired land in village Piyun, Sub Tehsil Aut, District Mandi for construction of Aut-Takoli-Parashar road by completing the process under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred to as ''the Act'') after issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act published in Rajpatra on 2.3.1991. Land Acquisition Collector had passed award under Section 11 of the Act determining the compensation payable to the land owners/claimants. 3. Being aggrieved by inadequacy of compensation awarded, land owners including deceased Chamaru Ram along-with co-sharers had preferred applications to the Land Acquisition Collector to make reference under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation. The said applications were preferred on 8.7.1997. In one of the applications, Chamaru Ram was also one of ten co-sharer land owners, who along-with other co-sharers had preferred joint applications for land reference. Land Acquisition Collector had referred these applications including the one preferred by deceased Chamaru Ram and his coowners to District Court on 19.2.2003. But prior to that, Chamaru Ram had expired on 1.6.1999. 4. On noticing about death of deceased Chamaru Ram, learned counsel representing the cosharer land owners in reference petition(s) before learned Additional District Judge, had preferred an application under Order 22, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ''CPC'') through legal representatives of deceased Chamaru for their substitution in place of Chamaru Ram. The said application was taken for consideration by learned Additional District Judge on 28.3.2011. 5. After knowing that deceased Chamaru Ram had expired on 1.6.1999, prior to receiving the reference petition by the Court from Land Acquisition Collector, his name was ordered to be deleted with finding that dead person was not competent to approach the Court. 6. Feeling aggrieved by said order, the legal representatives of deceased Chamaru Ram have filed present appeal. During interregnum, land references preferred by other co-owners, amongst whom Chamaru Ram was also one of claimant, were decided by learned Additional District Judge on 28.9.2011. 6. Feeling aggrieved by said order, the legal representatives of deceased Chamaru Ram have filed present appeal. During interregnum, land references preferred by other co-owners, amongst whom Chamaru Ram was also one of claimant, were decided by learned Additional District Judge on 28.9.2011. 7. Proceedings of the land reference petition under Land Acquisition Act are unique in nature where referring authority i.e. Land Acquisition Collector is also respondent who is represented in the Court through Government Advocate even prior to issuance of notice to the claimants, who is under obligation to give the necessary information, including names of persons whom he has reason to think interested in such land as provided under Section 19 of the Act, to the Court at the time of making reference.Notices to applicant/claimant and others are issued only after registration of reference by Court and the proceedings start only when the Court takes cognizance of the reference by registering it. 8. Scheme of the Act provides that land owner/claimant cannot approach the Court directly under Section 18 of the Act for making land reference to the District Judge. On dissatisfying and being aggrieved by award of the Land Acquisition Collector, the land owner/claimant has a right to submit an application to the Land Acquisition Collector with its grounds for making reference to the District Judge within the time prescribed under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and on the basis of such application, as provided under the Act, Land Acquisition Collector has to make references, whereupon the District Judge shall make an award as provided under the Act. 9. With regard to applicability of Order 22 CPC and Limitation Act, a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in a judgment in case titled as Abdul Karim v. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in AIR 1964 MP 171 , has held that once a reference under Section 18 of the Act is made, the Court has to make an award irrespective of appearance or absence of the person at whose instance the reference was made and there cannot be any dismissal or abatement as reference proceedings under the Act and proceedings of suit under CPC were altogether different and cannot be deemed proceedings before the Court under the Act for very nature and scope of proceedings under Section 18 of the Act. After considering various pronouncement of different High Courts including the judgment rendered by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Abdul Karim''s case, (supra) and also pronouncements of the Apex Court, a Division Bench of this Court in Shrimati Dhani Devi and others v. Collector, Land Acquisition, Talwara and another, reported in AIR 1982 HP 42 (also reported as Bachhittar Singh and others v. The Collector Land Acquisition Talwara Township in 1982 Sim. L.C. 90 ) has held that relevant provisions of CPC, which are not inconsistent with the Act, can be made applicable in land acquisition reference cases because of Section 53 of the Act and there is nothing in the Act which militates against the legal representation of the deceased claimant being required to be brought on record so as to continue proceedings with further observation that though provisions of Order 22 CPC are applicable in the reference cases under Land Acquisition Act, but the provisions of Limitation Act, for dealing with such application under Order 22 CPC, are not applicable. However, such application has to be preferred within reasonable time. 10. The Division Bench in Dhani Devi''s (Bachhittar Singh''s) case, has also observed that in case the applicant disappears from the scene, the Court cannot justify the amount awarded by the Collector on the ground that applicant is no more interested in supporting the objections raised by him as under Section 26 of the Act and the Court while making its award is required amongst others, to give the grounds of awarding each amount and such award is not possible in absence of claimant and thus reference Court is not bound to make award in absence of claimant. But, in view of subsequent pronouncement of the Apex Court in Khazan Singh (dead) through LRs. v. Union of India reported in (2002) 2 SCC 242 ,this part of judgment of the Division Bench has lost force as the Apex Court has held as under:- "7. The provisions above subsumed would thus make it clear that 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 party concerned. 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 party concerned. But nonparticipation of any party would not confer jurisdiction on the civil court to dismiss the reference for default." 11. Based upon the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Khazan Singh''s case, a Single Judge of this High Court in Thakur Dass v. Land Acquisition Collector and others Latest HLJ 2003(HP) 12 has held that the District Judge ought not to have dismissed the reference application in default and he was under legal obligation to decide the reference application on merits in absence of either party. 12. Another Single Judge of this Court again in Collector Land Acquisition NHPC v. Khewa Ram and others reported in Latest HLJ 2007 HP 270 , after relying upon pronouncement of the Apex Court in Khazan Singh''s case and also in case of Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra (dead) by L.Rs and others v. Pramod Gupta (Smt.)(dead) by L.Rs and others reported in (2003) 3 SCC 272 considering their conjunctive inference has concluded that it is apparent that the Apex Court has impliedly held that provisions of Order 22 CPC are applicable to the land acquisition matters also but absence of claimant or his legal representatives after his death will not result into dismissal or abatement as reference Court under the provisions of the Act is bound to decide the reference petition even in absence of claimant. Legal position in this regard as concluded by learned Single Judge is as under:- (para 12) "1. That a duty is cast upon the reference court to decide a reference petition even if the claimant does not appear. 2. If the claimant does not appear despite notice, he does so at his own risk and the court can answer the reference in the absence of the evidence led by the claimant. 3. A situation may arise where the claimant absents himself after leading evidence. In such a situation, the court is bound to decide the reference petition on the basis of the evidence led before it." 13. 3. A situation may arise where the claimant absents himself after leading evidence. In such a situation, the court is bound to decide the reference petition on the basis of the evidence led before it." 13. It emerges from aforesaid discussion that view of the Division Bench of this Court in Dhani Devi''s (Bachhitar Singh''s) case, so far as it pronounces that provision of Order 22 CPC would be applicable in land reference case, stands reiterated but with rider that rigours of abatement shall not follow in these cases. Learned Single Judge in Khewa Ram''s case supra, in a situation, where claimant has died during proceedings of land reference,has elaborated the procedure to be followed for dealing with such situation in some circumstances as follows:-(para 13) (a) In case there is only one claimant in an isolated case of land acquisition and the claimant dies, then obviously if the court is unaware about the death of the claimant, it will proceed to decide the reference on the material placed on record before it. In such a case, if either the legal representatives of the claimant or the acquiring authority files an appeal, then the award of the District Judge will have to be set aside and the reference proceedings deemed to have been abated. The questions whether abatement should be set aside and whether the delay, if any, should be condoned, are questions to be decided by the District Judge alone and not by the appellate Court. (b) However, even in the aforesaid situation, the award cannot be said to be a nullity since the reference court is bound by law to answer the reference. In case none of the parties is aggrieved, the legal representatives can execute the award in accordance with law. (c) In cases where there are more than one claimants and each is owner of a separate share, then the death of one of the claimants can never render the award to be a nullity. The award is answered in favour of all the claimants. Therefore, in an appeal filed either by the claimants or by the acquiring authority, the legal representatives of the deceased-claimant can be brought on record even during the course of the appeal and it is not necessary to refer the matter back to the reference court. The award is answered in favour of all the claimants. Therefore, in an appeal filed either by the claimants or by the acquiring authority, the legal representatives of the deceased-claimant can be brought on record even during the course of the appeal and it is not necessary to refer the matter back to the reference court. (d) Where there are more than one petitions and they are decided by a common award and the sole claimant in one of the petitions has died during the pendency of the reference proceedings, the entire award cannot be termed a nullity. Since the award is a common award based on common evidence led by all the parties, the legal representatives of the deceased can be brought on record during the pendency of the appeal also. (e) In cases (c) and (d) above the abatement, if any, will be qua the deceased and the entire proceedings will not abate. In both these cases the legal representatives can be brought on record even during the pendency of the appeal." 14. A learned Single Judge of Kerala High Court, in case Joseph v. The Special Tahsildar (L.A.) and another, reported in AIR 2008 Kerala 175 , after considering the views expressed by High Courts of Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Calcutta and Delhi Abdul Karim v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1964 Madhya Pradesh 171 , Alihusain Abbasbhai and others v. Collector, Pancha Mahals AIR 1967 Gujarat 118 , State of W.B. v. Dwijendra Chandra Sen AIR 1979 Calcutta 182 and Chander and others v. Mauji and others reported in AIR 1989 Delhi 97 , but without noticing the Apex Court in Khazan Singh (dead) by L.Rs. v. Union of India reported in (2002) 2 SCC 242 and Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra (Dead) by L.Rs. v. Pramod Gupta (Smt.)(dead) by LRs and others reported in (2003) 3 SCC 272 , and also this Court in Collector Land Acquisition NHPC v. Khewa Ram reported in Latest HLJ 2007 (HP) 270 , has agreed with view taken by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Abdul Karim''s case that their could be no dismissal of the reference case on the ground of abatement and has culled out certain principles, for more suitability and lesser inconvenience to the parties, to deal with situations arising out on account of death of land owner/claimant. 15. 15. In present case the legal representatives had approached the Court by filing the application under Order 22, Rule 3 CPC for their substitution against deceased land owner who had expired prior to receipt of reference by the Court. 16. There may be another issue with regard to maintainability of application under Order 22, Rule 3 CPC, for the reasons that such application would have been maintainable in case the land owner had expired during pendency of petition. In present case, the land owner had already expired prior to the receipt of land reference in Court. But, in any case, legal heirs have right to become party in the land reference petitions and thus, the court should have addressed the Land Acquisition Collector to supply the detail of legal heirs of deceased land owners being interested person in acquired land and should have exercised its power under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC for adding them in place of deceased being a necessary party for proper, complete and final decision of the case. 17. Dealing with the situation where the respondent had expired after passing of award, but before filing of appeal by State, the Hon''ble Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Sridevi and others reported in (2000) 9 SCC 168 has held that in such a situation where Order 22 CPC shall not be applicable but provision under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC has to be invoked and there is no specified period of limitation for making an application in the aforesaid Rule and if at all any application is necessary, the same could be filed within three years under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, and three years begin to run from the date when right to apply accrues. 18. In case in hand, the deceased land owner had made an application for reference within prescribed time which was to be further transmitted by the Land Acquisition Collector to the District Judge as land reference. 19. Pending consideration application with Land Acquisition Collector, one of the land owners Chamaru Ram had expired. The application was referred by Land Acquisition Collector after about 5-6 years without verifying the status of parties. In making reference to Court, after submitting application to Land Acquisition Collector, the land owner has no role. 19. Pending consideration application with Land Acquisition Collector, one of the land owners Chamaru Ram had expired. The application was referred by Land Acquisition Collector after about 5-6 years without verifying the status of parties. In making reference to Court, after submitting application to Land Acquisition Collector, the land owner has no role. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the Land Acquisition Collector before making the reference after lapse of 5/6 years to ascertain the current status of interested parties and in case of death of any party, he must have ascertained the details of legal representatives of such claimant and should have made the reference along-with report of death of applicant Chamaru Ram with detail of legal heirs of deceased claimant/land owners. But he had failed to perform his duty. 20. At the second stage of case when notices were issued to land owners by learned Additional District Judge after receiving the land references from Land Acquisition Collector and it was noticed that one of the land owners had expired, it was duty of the Land Acquisition Collector to inform the Court about the legal representatives of deceased land owner and also inform the legal representatives about reference made by him on the basis of application of their predecessor-ininterest and thereafter legal heirs of such deceased land owner would have liberty either to approach the Court or not pursue the matter before the Land Acquisition Collector. 21. In the present case, right had definitely accrued after knowledge to legal representatives with regard to transmission of reference petition by the Land Acquisition Collector to the Court, whereafter they had preferred the application under Order 22, Rule 3 CPC. As land owner/claimant had expired prior to reference petition coming into existence and death had not taken place during pendency of reference petition, provisions of Order 22 CPC were not attracted. 22. Land Acquisition Act is beneficiary Act and it is also settled that wrong mention of provisions in application should not be made basis to deny justice or adjudicate the matter, if otherwise, such application or petition is maintainable under another provisions of law. In present case, legal representatives had come to know about reference petitions, made on behalf of deceased Chamaru Ram, only after registration of reference petition by Reference Court and application for their substitution was filed during pendency of the said reference petition. In present case, legal representatives had come to know about reference petitions, made on behalf of deceased Chamaru Ram, only after registration of reference petition by Reference Court and application for their substitution was filed during pendency of the said reference petition. There is no delay on the part of legal representatives in approaching the Court, much less the inordinate delay. Therefore, in my opinion, learned Additional District Judge must have considered the said application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC and keeping in view the scheme of Land Acquisition Act, as discussed above, he should have allowed the legal representatives of deceased Chamaru Ram to be substituted in his place in land reference petition. 23. Finding of learned Additional District Judge is that dead person is not competent to approach the Court. Undoubtedly, a dead person cannot approach the Court, but in case, in hand, it was not a deceased land owner, who had approached the Court, but reference petition was transmitted to the Court by Land Acquisition Collector by performing his duty under the Act. Therefore, it was not a case where dead person had approached the Court. 24. In almost similar facts and circumstances, this Court in RFA No. 549 of 2011, titled Jyoti Prakash and others v. Collector, Land Acquisition, HPPWD and another decided on 1.9.2017 has permitted the legal representatives of deceased land owner/claimant to make an application to come on record of land reference petition after substituting the deceased land owner and to revive the reference petition dismissed by the Reference Court. 25. In fact, the Land Acquisition Collector was under obligation to supply the details of legal representatives of land owner/claimant to the Court at the time of referring the application. Therefore, when it came in notice of Court that land owner/claimant had expired after submitting the application to Land Acquisition Collector, but prior to the transmission of reference petitions to Court, learned Additional District Judge should have addressed the Land Acquisition Collector for furnishing details of legal representatives of deceased land owner/claimant. 26. Conjunctive consideration of relevant provisions and binding pronouncements of the Apex Court, following principles would be appropriate to deal with various situations arising on account of death of land owner/claimant:- 1. 26. Conjunctive consideration of relevant provisions and binding pronouncements of the Apex Court, following principles would be appropriate to deal with various situations arising on account of death of land owner/claimant:- 1. In case, claimant/land owners expires during pendency of land reference made under Section 18 of the Act, provisions of Order 22 CPC for bringing his legal representatives on record in such proceeding may be invoked and Court should follow procedure to deal with situation as provided in Khewa Ram''s case Latest HLJ 2007 HP 270 referred supra. Further, in case no one comes forward for substitution of deceased claimant through his legal representatives, the reference petition is to be decided finally on the basis of material placed before the Court by party(ies). 2. Despite applicability of Order 22 CPC, rigours of abatement shall not be applicable in land reference cases. 3. Though, no provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to such application, however, the application has to be made within reasonable period depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case to be considered and determined by the Court. 4. In case of death of claimant before registration of reference petition in the Court, but noticed after registration of reference petition, provisions of Order 22 CPC will not be applicable, but provisions of Order 1, Rule 10 CPC will be attracted. 5. If claimant expires after submitting application by land owner/claimant to Land Acquisition Collector for making land reference, but before making the reference, then it is duty of the Land Acquisition Collector to make reference indicating therein the legal representatives of deceased claimant as interested parties on behalf of deceased. In case, he fails to do so, and the fact of death of claimant comes to notice of Court during pendency of reference, the Land Acquisition Collector should be asked by the Court to furnish the details of legal representatives of deceased claimant and Court should issue notice to them and add them as claimants in place of deceased claimant after deleting the name of deceased claimant by exercising the power under Order 1, Rule 10 (2) CPC. Legal representatives, after having knowledge of land reference made to the Court by Land Acquisition Collector, may also approach the Court themselves by invoking the provisions of Order 1, Rule 10 CPC as Order 22 CPC will not be applicable in such a situation for the reason that claimant has not expired during pendency of land reference petition. 6. In case claimant expires after dispatch of reference to the Court, but before registration of the same in the Court, in such eventuality also, Land Acquisition Collector is under obligation to substitute the deceased claimant by his legal representatives. However, after having the knowledge of pendency of reference petition, legal representatives, on their own, may also approach the Court under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC and the Court either on application of legal representatives or its own, after having details of legal representatives of deceased claimant from Land Acquisition Collector, and after issuing notice to them, can add such legal representatives as party to the reference petition invoking Order 1, Rule 10(2) CPC. 7. In case the claimant expires after registration of reference petition, but before service of notice, then also firstly it is duty of the Land Acquisition Collector to furnish the details of legal representatives of deceased claimant and the Court can address him to do so, whereupon the Land Acquisition Collector has to furnish detail of legal representatives of deceased claimant, whereupon the Court shall issue notice to such legal representatives of deceased claimant. After having presence of such legal representatives, the Court can add them after deleting the deceased claimant, by exercising power under Order 1, Rule 10 (2) CPC or they can be added as claimants on filing an application by them by invoking provisions of Order 1, Rule 10 CPC after receiving the notice from Land Acquisition Collector or otherwise having the knowledge of pendency of land reference petition as the death of claimant takes place after making of reference, but before service of notice and at that time neither deceased nor his legal representatives are having the knowledge of making of reference to Court. At this stage, Order 22 CPC can also be invoked in such a situation, as claimant expires after registration of reference petition in the Court i.e. during pendency of reference petition. 8. At this stage, Order 22 CPC can also be invoked in such a situation, as claimant expires after registration of reference petition in the Court i.e. during pendency of reference petition. 8. In case the claimant expires after receiving the notice in reference petition from the Court, then certainly it is duty of the legal representatives of deceased claimant to come on record within reasonable period to continue the proceedings of reference petition and in such a situation, provisions of Order 22 CPC shall be applicable. Legal representatives of deceased claimant can themselves approach the Court under relevant provisions of law applicable for their impleadment in proceeding at any stage without waiting either for furnishing of detail by Land Acquisition Collector or for issuance of notice by the Court. The Court after considering objection of respondent, if any, shall pass appropriate order, in accordance with law. 27. In view of above discussion, particularly principles enumerated herein-above, impugned order is set aside and present appellants, who are legal representatives of deceased Chamaru Ram, are permitted to be taken on record of land reference petition. As noticed above, Land Reference Petition No. 44 of 2003, titled as Jawahar Lal & others v. Collector Land Acquisition , wherein deceased Chamaru was one of claimants, stands finally decided by learned Additional District Judge, enhancing the amount of compensation to the land owners. Therefore, the present appellants, i.e. legal representatives of deceased Chamaru Ram, are also held to be entitled for the same amount of compensation as has been awarded to other co-owners in the said Land Reference Petition No. 44 of 2003, along with consequential benefits including interest, subject to modification thereof, if any, in any other judgment passed by the competent Court in appeal or any other proceedings arising out of the award passed in said Land Reference Petition. 28. Appeal is allowed in aforesaid terms. Respondents are directed to calculate the amount of compensation payable to the appellants/legal representatives of deceased Chamaru Ram within two months from today and ensure the payment of the same along with upto date interest and all statutory benefits applicable and admissible to the persons entitled, within eight weeks thereafter.