CR-4937-202 216 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Land Acquisition Collector Amritsar Amit Kumar and others CORAM: Present:- HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) to an order dated District Judge, Gurdaspur respondent No.2 struck off. 2. application Transparency in Land of Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, for short ‘the Act’, respondents No.1 herein appeared before the Gurdaspur, on 21.04.2022 opportunities, no written statement was filed at into striking off def 2025(O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: Land Acquisition Collector-cum- Additional Chief Administrator, Versus Amit Kumar and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Mr.Ashish Grover, Advocate for the petitioner. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) By way of present revision petition challenge has been to an order dated 16.05.2024 (P-4) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur; whereby the defence of the petitioner respondent No.2 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the petitioner’) has been The facts leading to the present case are that a under Section 64 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land of Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement , for short ‘the Act’, came to be filed at the instance of respondents No.1 and 2 on 24.10.2019 appeared before the learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur, on 21.04.2022. Despite having availed opportunities, no written statement was filed at into striking off defence by the learned Additional District Judge, IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-4937-2025(O&M) Date of Decision: 30.07.2025 Additional Chief Administrator, ........ Petitioner ......... Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA By way of present revision petition challenge has been laid passed by learned Additional ; whereby the defence of the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as ‘the petitioner’) has been The facts leading to the present case are that a under Section 64 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land of Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement came to be filed at the instance of and 2 on 24.10.2019. After service, the petitioner learned Additional District Judge, . Despite having availed numerous effective opportunities, no written statement was filed at its instance, resulting learned Additional District Judge, laid passed by learned Additional ; whereby the defence of the petitioner/ (hereinafter referred to as ‘the petitioner’) has been The facts leading to the present case are that an under Section 64 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land of Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement came to be filed at the instance of . After service, the petitioner learned Additional District Judge, effective instance, resulting learned Additional District Judge, SANJAY GUPTA 2025.07.31 19:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-4937-202 Gurdaspur, on 16.05.2024 impugned by way of present revision petition seeking one last opportunity to file their written statement. 3. through the paper 4. learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur purposes of filing fact that the even as of now, the proceedings are fixed for purpose of recording of which is even yet to start discretion needs to be exerc petitioner so as to avoid prejudice to 5. ors., 2005 (2) RCR (Civil) 379, while considering the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, has held that the same is part of proc law and hence directory in nature. Still further, keeping in view the substantial justice, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurulingappa and ors. opportunity of filing written statement granted by otherwise, upholding of the impugned order will cause serious prejudice to the rights of the petitioner as any defence to the claim set up by respondents No.1 6. being hyper dated 16.05.2024 2025(O&M) [2] Gurdaspur, on 16.05.2024. It is the aforesaid order which has been impugned by way of present revision petition seeking one last opportunity to file their written statement. I have heard learned counsel fo through the paper-book. Though sufficient opportunities were granted by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur purposes of filing its reply/written statement, however, considering the that the application under Section 64 of the Act still even as of now, the proceedings are fixed for purpose of recording of applicants / respondents No.1 & 2 evidence which is even yet to start discretion needs to be exerc petitioner so as to avoid prejudice to its rights. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in , 2005 (2) RCR (Civil) 379, while considering the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, has held that the same is part of proc law and hence directory in nature. Still further, keeping in view the substantial justice, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurulingappa and ors., 2018 (1) RCR (Civil) 543, upheld the opportunity of filing written statement granted by otherwise, upholding of the impugned order will cause serious prejudice to the rights of the petitioner as any defence to the claim set up by respondents No.1 Accordingly by adopting a pragmatic approach rather th being hyper-technical, the revision petition is allowed. Impugned order 16.05.2024 is ordered to be set aside thereby granting one . It is the aforesaid order which has been impugned by way of present revision petition seeking one last opportunity to file their written statement. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone Though sufficient opportunities were granted by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur to the petitioner for the written statement, however, considering the pplication under Section 64 of the Act still pending, and even as of now, the proceedings are fixed for 25.09.2025 for the applicants / respondents No.1 & 2 evidence which is even yet to start discretion needs to be exercised in favour of rights. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kailash Vs. Nanhku and , 2005 (2) RCR (Civil) 379, while considering the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, has held that the same is part of procedural law and hence directory in nature. Still further, keeping in view the substantial justice, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Siddalingayya Vs. , 2018 (1) RCR (Civil) 543, upheld the opportunity of filing written statement granted by the High Court. Even otherwise, upholding of the impugned order will cause serious prejudice to the rights of the petitioner as it will not be able to put-forth any defence to the claim set up by respondents No.1 and 2. pragmatic approach rather tha technical, the revision petition is allowed. Impugned order is ordered to be set aside thereby granting one . It is the aforesaid order which has been impugned by way of present revision petition seeking one last r the petitioner and gone Though sufficient opportunities were granted by the to the petitioner for the written statement, however, considering the and for the applicants / respondents No.1 & 2 evidence, ised in favour of Kailash Vs. Nanhku and , 2005 (2) RCR (Civil) 379, while considering the provisions of edural law and hence directory in nature. Still further, keeping in view the Siddalingayya Vs. , 2018 (1) RCR (Civil) 543, upheld the the High Court. Even otherwise, upholding of the impugned order will cause serious forth an technical, the revision petition is allowed. Impugned order is ordered to be set aside thereby granting one SANJAY GUPTA 2025.07.31 19:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-4937-202 effective opportunity to the petitioner so as to file on the date aforesaid order shall be subject to payment of costs of Rs.2 which shall be deposited with the trial Court on the date fixed and disbursed in favour of respondents No.1 7. petition is being decided without issuing notice to respondents No.1 2, least it may delay the progress of the Act instituted at their instance. 8. misstatement of fact on part of the petitioner, they would be at liberty to approach this Court by moving an appropriate application in this regard. 30.07.2025 sanjay 2025(O&M) [3] effective opportunity to the petitioner so as to file on the date fixed before the trial Court i.e. aforesaid order shall be subject to payment of costs of Rs.2 which shall be deposited with the trial Court on the date fixed and disbursed in favour of respondents No.1 Keeping in view the nature of proceedings, the present petition is being decided without issuing notice to respondents No.1 , least it may delay the progress of application under Section 64 of instituted at their instance. However, in case, respondents N misstatement of fact on part of the petitioner, they would be at liberty to approach this Court by moving an appropriate application in this Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable effective opportunity to the petitioner so as to file its written statement fixed before the trial Court i.e. 25.09.2025. However, the aforesaid order shall be subject to payment of costs of Rs.25000/ which shall be deposited with the trial Court on the date fixed and disbursed in favour of respondents No.1 & 2. ew the nature of proceedings, the present petition is being decided without issuing notice to respondents No.1 & application under Section 64 of However, in case, respondents No.1 & 2 find any misstatement of fact on part of the petitioner, they would be at liberty to approach this Court by moving an appropriate application in this ( HARKESH MANUJA ) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Yes/No written statement . However, the 000/- which shall be deposited with the trial Court on the date fixed and ew the nature of proceedings, the present & application under Section 64 of find any misstatement of fact on part of the petitioner, they would be at liberty to approach this Court by moving an appropriate application in this SANJAY GUPTA 2025.07.31 19:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document