Full Judgment
1. This appeal is by the claimants/landowners of land in Sy. No. 44 of Nagavar Village, Bangalore North Taluk, in all measuring an extent of about 9 acres. The appellants have preferred this appeal being aggrieved by dismissal of miscellaneous application by the Court below which application had been filed to set aside the order of dismissal dated 30-9-1991 passed by the said Court in LAC No. 448 of 1990 for non-appearance and non-prosecution.
2. The lands of the appellants had come to be acquired by the respondent-Bangalore Development Authority for its development scheme known as 'HBR III Stage Layout'. The Land Acquisition Officer had awarded compensation in respect of the acquired lands and the appellant being not satisfied by the quantum of compensation, had sought for reference to the Civil Court under Section 18(3)(b) of the Land Acquisition Act, seeking for enhancement of the compensation amount.
3. The said reference had been numbered as LAC. No, 448 of 1990 on the file of the Court of II Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore. The appellants were prosecuting the reference through their power of attorney holder Sri H.M. Hullurappa.
4. It is the case of the appellant that in the reference case, evidence had been let in on behalf of the claimants/appellants and said power of attorney had been examined and certain documents had been marked through him. It appears thereafter, the case had been set down for the cross-examination of the power of attorney as on 30-9-1991. In view of the absence of the said Sri Munivenkatappa on that day, the learned Civil Judge dismissed the reference application for non-prosecution of the case.
5. On behalf of the appellants, a miscellaneous application had been filed before the Civil Court in Miscellaneous Petition No. 624 of 1997 seeking to set aside the order of dismissal for non-prosecution to restore the case on file and to proceed with the matter. In support of the miscellaneous application, the appellants had pleaded that the said power of attorney who had been examined and who was to be cross-examined further, could not attend the Court on 30-9-1991 as he suffered a paralytic stroke and had been bedridden for about two years thereafter and accordingly, steps could not be taken, for setting aside the order of dismissal. It is only after the said power of attorney was able to move around and became fit to move an application, moved an application andaccordingly prayed for allowing the said miscellaneous application to set aside the order dated 30-9-1991 and for resumption of LAC No. 448 of 1990 from the stage at which it had been stopped. The learned Civil Judge who had looked into the matter allowed the evidence to be let in on miscellaneous application, and being of the view that, an inordinate delay of more than six years has not been properly explained by the appellants particularly when the appellants were themselves aware of the illness of the power of attorney holder and not having taken any steps to pursue the matter either by themselves or by engaging any other person on their behalf, the application filed at such belated stage for setting aside an order of dismissal cannot be entertained and as in the view of the learned Civil Judge, the delay in seeking for setting aside the order of dismissal had not been properly explained, the miscellaneous application deserved to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed the same as per order dated 30-9-1991. Aggrieved by this order, the appellants are before this Court seeking to set aside the said order of dismissal.
6. Sri Shiraguppi, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the power of attorney holder of the appellants/applicants had suffered a paralytic stroke and was bedridden in fact for a few years, is not disputed and on the other hand, it is brought on record by the Medical Certificate produced on behalf of the appellants and also the oral evidence led in this regard. It is also submitted that in a proceeding of reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, the matter is not necessarily in the nature of adversary litigation, but under the statutory provision of the Land Acquisition Act which enables owners of the lands who have lost their property due to compulsory acquisition by the State to seek for claiming just compensation if the compensation as has been awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is either on the lower side or insufficient. It is the submission of the learned Counsel that in a matter of this nature, the claimants/landowners get an opportunity to place material before the Court justifying enhanced compensation and nothing more. Ultimately, the quantum of compensation is required to be determined applying the settled legal principles of such material before Court. In the instant case, the appellants in fact had placed material before the Court and at that stage, the learned Civil Judge was not justified in dismissing the reference application. In this regard, the submission of the learned Counsel is that, even if the Court was not inclined to allow the miscellaneous application for restoration, the Court ought to have proceeded to pass an order on the merits based on the material that was already available on record and the Court having not done the same, it was proper and in the interest of justice that the Court should have allowed the miscellaneous application and afforded an opportunity to the appellants/claimants to seek for just compensation by setting aside the order of dismissal. In this regard, the learned Counsel has placed reliance on a decision of this Court rendered in the case of Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Mehboob bi.
7. In this case, an order of dismissal dismissing a reference application for default which had been passed on 31-10-1984 was sought to be set aside by moving a miscellaneous application on 28-1-1993 i.e., after a lapse of about 8 to 9 years. The grounds urged in support of a said miscellaneous application was that the appellants were ignorant and illiterate and they could not move the Court earlier. In view of such pleadings, the Civil Court had allowed such an application and had restored the matter to the file. Aggrieved by this order of Civil Court, the State had come up in revision before the High Court contending that an inordinate delay of nine years ought not to have been condoned by the Civil Court and the miscellaneous application should have been dismissed. This Court while examining this contention at the instance of the State, held that an application for restoration was maintainable in law, in view of the fact that the appellants were poor litigants whose lands had been taken away by the State and in a reference to seek just compensation, technicalities should not be allowed to cause obstruction in the way of rendering justice and when once the Court had considered condonation of delay was just and proper, in the circumstances, it is not a fit case for interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the High Court to set aside such an order and accordingly dismissed the petition. In the instant case, the facts are slightly different inasmuch as the Civil Court itself did not deem it fit to set aside the order of dismissal and on the other hand, has rejected the application for restoration on the ground of delay. In the light of these facts the question for consideration is as to whether this Court is compelled to interfere in the matter for setting aside the order of dismissal of the miscellaneous application as well as the order of dismissal for non-prosecution and to restore the civil reference case to the file of the Court below.
8. In a matters of this nature, the Court should be liberal in its approach to further the cause of justice and to effectuate the intention of the Act. A reference application under Section 18 is to enable the owners of lands whose lands have been acquired by the State to seek for a just compensation if the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is found to be inadequate or on the lower side. In a reference under Section 18, the lis between the parties is not necessarily akin to a lis between the two private parties. It also cannot be said that, delay of proceedings has in any way given rise to any right in favour of the State which has acquired the lands. Delay in the disposal of the reference application at any rate will not act to the detriment of the State. If at all it may be detrimental to the claimant/landowners, when the other side is not likely to suffer any disadvantage or loss, the approach of the Court should be to view the matter generously and not to dismiss an application for restoration based on mere technicalities rather than on an objective consideration of the totality of the circumstances. In the instant case also, it is a fact that the power of attorney holder of the appellants had suffered paralytic stroke and was seriously ill. The appellants could come up with an application though belatedly and sought setting aside of the order of dismissal. In such circumstances, I am of the view thatthe Court below ought to have entertained the application and accepted the same rather than dismissing the application for restoration.
9. In this view of the matter, this appeal is allowed. The order dated 13-7-1999 passed by the II Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, dismissing the Miscellaneous Application No. 624 of 1997 as well as the order dated 30-9-1991 dismissing the LAC No. 448 of 1990 on its file are set aside. The miscellaneous application is allowed. The LAC No. 448 of 1990 is restored to the file and the Trial Court is directed to continue the proceedings from the stage at which it had been set down for further cross-examination as on 30-9-1991.
10. Appeal allowed. No costs.