Mere appearance of a Government Advocate does not establish effective service or authorized representation.

The appeals arose from land acquisition proceedings concerning land at Gram Nishatpura, Bhopal, acquired for establishment of a new Krishi Upaj Mandi.

An award was passed on 28 February 2004, following which the claimants sought enhancement of compensation under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

The Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti alleged that it was not served with notice in the reference proceedings and that the Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State had not been authorised to represent the Samiti, a separate statutory body.

The Samiti claimed that it first learnt of the proceedings upon receiving an execution notice on 22 June 2017 and thereafter applied for setting aside the ex parte award under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC, along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

The Fifth Additional Judge, Bhopal, dismissed those applications by orders dated 30 November 2018, principally holding that the Samiti had been represented through the Bharsadhak Adhikari and the Additional Public Prosecutor.

Whether the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti was duly served with notice and afforded an effective opportunity to contest the reference proceedings in which compensation was enhanced.

Whether the appearance of the Additional Public Prosecutor and the impleadment of the Bharsadhak Adhikari established valid service and authorised representation of the Samiti.

Whether the Samiti was entitled to relief under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC, along with condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

The Court applied Order IX Rule 13 CPC, under which an ex parte decree may be set aside where the defendant establishes that summons were not duly served or that sufficient cause prevented appearance.

Section 151 CPC preserves the Court’s inherent powers to secure the ends of justice, while Section 5 of the Limitation Act permits condonation of delay upon sufficient cause.

The Court also applied the principles of natural justice, particularly the requirement of due notice and a reasonable, effective opportunity of hearing before a party is bound by an adverse adjudication.

Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 governed the claimants’ reference for enhancement of compensation.

A counsel’s appearance cannot be treated as representation of a separate statutory body unless authority to represent that body is established on the record.

The first order-sheet dated 6 May 2008 recorded that the claimants were required to deposit the requisite process fee and that notice would thereafter be issued to the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti.

Since the Samiti’s case was that the process fee was never deposited and summons were consequently never issued, the record prima facie indicated that effective service had not occurred.

The Court held that the lower Court had relied inadequately on the appearance of the Additional Public Prosecutor and the impleadment of the Bharsadhak Adhikari.

Those circumstances did not prove that the Samiti itself had been served or that the Additional Public Prosecutor had been authorised by it, particularly because the Samiti was a distinct statutory body with its own legal representation.

In the absence of proof of service and valid authorisation, the Samiti had not received the effective opportunity of hearing required by Order IX Rule 13 CPC and natural justice.

The matters were remanded to the competent Court for fresh adjudication in accordance with law, after providing the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti a proper and effective opportunity to file its defence and contest the reference proceedings on merits.

The connected appeals were disposed of accordingly.