Kishanlal Arora vs The Land Acquisition Officer

K.K. Trivedi, J.—Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. The only grievance of the petitioner is that a reference was made u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act for brevity) by the Collector to the Civil Court and the matter was pending before the said Reference Court. Vide order dated 12.5.2010, the Reference case was dismissed in default holding that the petitioner despite grant of opportunity could not produce any evidence. It is pointed out that such a course was not open to the Reference Court as reference was required to be answered either in negative or in affirmation. It is contended that such a course adopted by the Reference Court is against the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Khazan Singh Vs. Union of India, . It is further contended that this particular aspect is examined by a Division Bench of this Court and it has been held that reference is not required to be dismissed in default by any Civil Court.

After examining the order passed by the learned Reference Court, learned Dy. Advocate General fairly states that the Reference Court was required to answer the reference and not to dismiss the same in default as has been done vide order dated 12.5.2010.

In view of the aforesaid and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in case of Khazan Singh (supra) wherein it has categorically been held that the reference is required to be answered and not to be dismissed in default, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 12.5.2010 is hereby set aside. The reference case is restored to its original number and remitted back to the Reference Court to decide the same in accordance to law. Needless to say, in case the petitioner makes an appropriate application for grant of permission to adduce the evidence, the Reference Court will decide the same in accordance to law. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of.