The State of Punjab vs Smt. Nirmala Devi

G.S. Singhvi, J.—Land measuring 1.78 acres belonging to Smt. Ganga Devi widow of Shri Gurchaan Singh and acquired by the State Government in 1984 for the purpose of construction of staff quarters. The Land Acquisition Collector directed the payment of compensation at the rate of Rs.6104.50 per acre. In the reference application filed by the land owner u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') the District Judge, Hoshiarpur pasted the award dated 2.12.1987 for payment of compensation at the rate of Rs.790/- per marla. The State of Punjab (hereinafter described as ''the appellant'') challenged the said award in Regular First Appeal No.482 of 1988 which was summarily dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 22.4.1988 by one word judgment - "Dismissed". The appellant did not file Letters Patent Appear against that judgment. Instead, it directly filed petition for Special Leave to Appeal which was disposed of by the Supreme Court on 11.3.1991 with the direction that the SLP be transferred to the High Court for hearing being decided on merits by treating it to be a Letters Patent Appeal against, the decision of the learned Single Judge.

Shri Rupinder Khosla referred to the provisions of Order 41 Rule 11 of the CPC (for short, ''the CPC'') and argued that the impugned judgment should be set aside because it is contrary to law and me principles of natural justice. Shri Khosla further argued that several important questions were raised in the appeal filed by the State and, therefore, the learned Single Judge was not right in dismissing the same in limine without even sending for the record of the lower Court. Shri G.S. Jaswal frankly conceded that the learned Single Judge was not justified in dismissing the appeal by one word judgment but, at the same time, he tried to justify the award of compensation to the respondent at the rate of Rs.790/- per marla by arguing that the Reference Court had given cogent reasons for doing so.

We have thoughtfully considered the respective submissions and perused the entire record.

Rule 11 of Order 41 of the C.P.C. which empowers the Appellate Court to dismiss the appeal without sending notice to the tower Court reads as under:-

Re. 11. Power to dismiss appeal without sending notice to Lower Court- (1) The Appellate Court; after sending for record if it think fit so to do, and after fixing a day for hearing the appellant or the pleader and hearing him accordingly if he appears on that day, may dismiss the appeal without sending notice to the Court from whose decree and appeal is preferred and without serving notice on the respondent or his pleader.

(2) If on the day fixed or any other day to which the hearing may be adjourned the , appellant does not appear when the appeal is, called on for hearing, the Court may make an order that the appeal be dismissed.

(3) The dismissal of an appeal under this rule shall be notified to the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred.

(4) Where an Appellate Court, not being the High Court, dismiss an appeal under Sub-rule( 1), it shall deliver a judgment recording in brief its grounds for doing so, and a decree shall be drawn up in accordance with the judgment."

Any analysis of the provisions reproduced above shows that the Appellate Court has the power to dismiss the appeal without issuing notice to the respondent or his pleader and the Court from whose decree appeal is preferred. While doing so the Appellate Court has the discretion to Send for record of the Court below. The language of Sub-rule 4 of Rule 11 may, suggest that duty to record the grounds for dismissal of the appeal without issuing notice to the opposite party is cast upon the Appellate Court only if it is a Court other than the High Court but, in our opinion, this sub-rule cannot be so interpreted as to exclude the applicability the basic tenets of natural justice in the exercise of the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court, Rather, the requirement of recording reasons in support of the judgment has to be read as implicit in the exercise of power vested in the Appellate Court to dismiss the appeal summarily. If administrative and quasi-judicial authorities are required to record reasons as a necessary concomitant of the requirement to comply with the rules of natural justice and fairness, the Courts, whose decisions are subject to appeal under the C.P.C. or the Letters Patent, are also under a duty to record reasons, howsoever, briefly, in support of their decisions.

A perusal of the memo of First Appeal filed on behalf of the appellant shows that various issues raised therein merited a detailed consideration by the learned Single Judge. The question as to whether while awarding higher compensation to the land owner, the Reference Court was justified in placing reliance on the two sale deeds which do not appear to have been proved by any witness, did require a detailed examination at the hands of the learned Single Judge but without dealing with any of the points raised by the appellant, he dismissed the appeal by a totally non-speaking Order. With great respect to the learned Single Judge, we are unable to appreciate the manner in which the first appeal was dismissed. In our considered opinion, while dismissing Regular First Appeal in limine, the learned Single Judge was bound to record reasons and dismissal thereof by one word cannot be in any manner be justified. One word judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge has not only denied opportunity to the appellant to effectively challenge the same by filing appeal Under Clause X of the Letters Patent,, but has also deprived us of the opportunity to decider whether there existed good reasons for upholding the award passed by the Reference Court.

For the reasons mentioned above, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside with the direction that Regular First Appeal No. 482 of 1988 be admitted and decided on merits.