Hussain La, L.R. of Raju Ram vs Improvement Trust Tribunal and Others

N.C. Jain, J.—One Raju Ram was the owner of the land measuring 14 Kanals 3 Marias which is situated in the municipal limits of Jalandhar town. The aforementioned land was acquired by the Improvement Trust, Jalandhar, respondent No. l. The Collector gave the award and the aforesaid Raju Ram being not satisfied with the compensation filed an application u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short the ''Act'') claiming reference to the Improvement Trust Tribunal for enhancement. The application was filed through one Advocate Narinder Verma. The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition in default on 11.1.1978. The application was moved on 23.4.1984 for restoration of the reference application which was declined. The Tribunal dismissed the application for restoration vide Annexure P/6 holding that there was no sufficient cause for the restoration of the claim petition. The application for restoration was filed by the legal representatives.

Aggrieved against the order of the Tribunal, the writ petition was filed by the appellant which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. It has been found by the Learned Single Judge that Raju Ram was present on an earlier date of hearing i.e. before 11.1.1978 and that notice u/s 20 of the Act was issued to him. The records of the tribunal was summoned by the Letters Patent Bench. It is necessary to mention some zimmi orders passed by the Tribunal. The following orders in our considered view throw sufficient light upon the facts of the present case:-

"Notice to the petitioner be issued to file the copies of the petition and then issue notice to the respondents for 21.9.1977 on payment of process fee as per directions of the Presiding Officer who is on leave today.

31.8.1977

Sd/-Reader"

"Present: None.

"Report of the notice not received back. Again notice to the counsel for the petitioner be issued that the counsel for the petitioner be issued that he should file copies of the petition and R.C. within three days and then notices be issued to the respondents for 9.11.1977 as per directions of the Presiding Officer who has gone for training.

21.9.1977

Sd/- Reader"

"Present: Shri Narinder Verma, Counsel for the petitioner.

"Copies of the petition not filed. Be filed and notice to the respondents be issued for 11.1.1978 on payment of P.F.

9.11.1977 Sd/- President, I.T. Tribunal, Jalandhar."

"None is present for the petitioner inspite of repeated calls arid the case being kept over till after noon. Copy of the petition has not been filed as directed and as such notice could not be issued to the other side. No further proceedings in this case are possible. There is no material on the record to show that the compensation awarded by the Collector was inadequate. The petitioner is absent although present on the last hearing. In these circumstances there are no grounds to interfere with the award of the Collector and this petition and reference are dismissed.

11.1.1978.

Sd/- President, I.T. Tribunal, Jullundur."

A perusal of the first two orders clearly shows that they were not passed by the Presiding Officer and therefore they do not carry any value in the eyes of law. A perusal of the order dated 9.11.1977 shows that the petitioner was not present and this is the factual error which has been committed by the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge. It appears to us that the parties did not take any pain to make the records of the Tribunal available to the learned Single Judge and on account of the non-availability of the record, the learned Single Judge got mislead in thinking that Raju Ram, petitioner, was present on 9.11.1977 which is not a fact. Had the records been made available, the error in the order of the Tribunal would have been detected right at the stage when the writ petition of the appellant was dismissed. It further appears to us that at no stage any notice was issued to the original owner Raju Ram u/s 20 of the Act. It further appears to us that the case was at the stage of issuing notice to the respondents and for non compliance of certain directions as contained in zimmi orders, the case was dismissed in default. The counsel or his Clerk might have been negligent in not complying with the directions of the Tribunal but the fact remains that notice u/s 20 of the Act which was mandatory was never issued to the original owner. It has been settled in large number of judicial pronouncements that no litigant can be made to suffer on account of the fault of the counsel.

The finding of the learned Single Judge being not based upon facts which have been made available to this Court, there is no other option but to allow the appeal and remand the case to the Improvement Trust, Tribunal, Jullundur for fresh decision. The Tribunal would issue notice u/s 20 of the Act to the appellants which are the legal representatives of Raju Ram and proceed with the case in accordance with the law. No costs.

The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Improvement Trust Tribunal, Jullundur on 17.2.1997.

If at present there is no Tribunal functioning, then it is for the government to constitute one for disposing of the matter.