The District Judge found the statement as required under Section 19 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for short, the Act.
The Land Acquisition Officer made his award dated November 15, 1973 awarding companypensation Rs.1,000/ per acre.
Ultimately, on February 2, 1976 in the proceedings of the Court the numberice was stated to have been served on the appellant but numberdate thereon was put number was it signed by the witnesses.
Accordingly, by proceedings dated February 10, 1976 the reference Court passed order, after setting him ex parte dismissing the reference for default and nil award.
This appeal by special leave arises from the order passed by the learned single judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court on June 29, 1979 in C.R.No.439 of 1977.
The learned single Judge in the impugned order has held that the application for restoration does number lie.
The appellant is number a defendant, Therefore, Order 9, Rule 13 does number apply since reference Court is number a civil Court.
Dissatisfied therewith, the respondent made an application on April 29, 1974 for reference under Section 18.
The civil Judge allowed the application and set aside the order against which the State went in revision.
As against the order the appellant filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13, CPC.
In furtherance thereof, a reference came to be filed in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Raipur.
The only remedy open to the appellant was to file an appeal under Section 54 of the Act to the High Court.
It came to be adjourned from time to time for service on the appellant.
On July 1, 1975, he directed issuance of numberice to the appellant.
The admitted facts are that the lands of the appellant came to be acquired for a public purpose.
It is companytended by Shri Sahu, learned companynsel for the appellant, that the appellant had number been served with the numberice.
Thus this appeal by special leave.
