ORDER
G.C. Garg, J.
1. Land of Lachhman Dass, respondent No. 1 herein and of others was acquired by notification dated September 17, 1985 for setting up a Hydro-Turbines and Generator sets project for M/s Punjab Power Generation Machines Ltd. Village Channo, Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur. Land Acquisition Collector gave award on September 18, 1986. Landowners including Lachhman Dass Gupta sought references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act') and in all there were six references. These were referred to the learned District Judge for disposal according the law. The petitioner herein moved applications under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code or Civil Procedure for being impleaded as a respondent in the references pending before the District Judge/Additional District Judge. All the applications were dismissed. Revision Petitions taken against the order of learned Additional District Judge were also dismissed. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the order of this Court filed Special Leave Petitions which were granted and the petitioner company for whom the land had been acquired was ordered to be impleaded as a respondent in reference by the Supreme Court by its order dated January 28, 1991. In view of the order of the Supreme Court, the petitioner company was impleaded as a respondent in five references. However, no order could be passed on the application seeking impleadment in the sixth reference. In the absence of any order, learned Additional District Judge answered the reference and enhanced the compensation. The petitioner feeling dissatisfied moved an application for review before the learned Additional District Judge but the said application was dismissed. It is how the present revision came to be filed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Supreme Court by order dated December 17, 1990 had stayed proceedings before the Additional District Judge. This order had been conveyed to the learned District Judge but somehow this order escaped notice of the Presiding Officer and he answered the reference by order dated February 18, 1991. It is in this context that the application for review was made. In the situation, learned counsel prayed that learned Additional District ought to have restored the petitioner to the same position as it existed when the Supreme Court passed the order dated December 17, 1990 by re-calling the order and thereafter disposed of the reference in accordance with law.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent-landowner could not controvert the stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner. His only submission however was that the landowner has suffered much and the petitioner be directed to deposit the amount as determined by the learned Additional District Judge and he would undertake to refund the same in the event the amount of compensation already awarded by learned Additional District Judge is reduced while deciding the matter afresh.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties I am of the view that this revision deserves to succeed. Reference was answered by the learned Additional District Judge after the stay had been granted by the Supreme Court It was thus just and fair for the learned Additional District Judge to recall its order disposing of the reference and decide the matter afresh after lmpleading the petitioner as a respondent in the reference and affording the parties due opportunity to produce their respective evidence in support of their contentions. The respondent cannot take advantage of the fact that the reference has been answered. If the order passed by the Supreme Court had been brought to the notice of the learned Additional District Judge, reference would not have been answered. In the circumstances, I allow this revision petition, set aside the order dated May 20, 1993 passed on the application for review and consequently set aside the award dated February 18, 1991 and remit the case back to the learned Additional District Judge to dispose of the same in accordance with law after impleading the petitioner as a respondent therein and affording an opportunity to the parties to produce their evidence. Since the matter is pretty old and the other connected references are likely to be disposed of in the next few days, it is directed that the learned Additional District Judge shall answer the reference as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months after affording two opportunities to each of the parties for their evidence.
5. The parties through their counsel have been directed to appear before the learned Additional District Judge on September 21, 1994. A copy of this order be given dasti to the parties on payment of usual charges. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, parties are left to bear their own costs.