***

HARKESH MANUJA J. (ORAL) –

1. By way of present revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, prayer has been made for setting aside the order dated 26.11.2025 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, SAS Nagar (Mohali) in LAC No.268-2021, titled as “Rupinder Sandhu vs. Gurmit Singh”, whereby defence of the petitioner has been struck off.

2. Briefly stating, land measuring 3 kanal -19.97 marla owned by the petitioner situated in the revenue estate of Village Bakarpur, Tehsil and District SAS Nagar (Mohali) was acquired and award No.573 was passed in pursuance of notification dated 06.02.2019. However, respondent No.1 filed an application seeking issuance of LOI for residential plot/commercial site in her favour as per Land Pooling Policy dated 05.01.2021 on the basis of a sale deed mutated in her favour vide mutation No.4566 dated 12.03.2019 qua the property in dispute, which was executed after issuance of preliminary notification dated 06.02.2019 and without obtaining exemption from the Collector. Thereafter, a dispute arose regarding disbursement of compensation/land pooling of the subject property and the Land Acquisition Collector made a reference under Sections 76 & 77 of the Right to Fair Compensation & Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013 to the Court of ld. Additional District Judge, SAS Nagar (Mohali).

Upon notice, petitioner appeared before the learned Trial Court. Reply on behalf of respondent No.3 was filed on 29.04.2023 and the case was adjourned for filing reply on behalf of the petitioner and respondent No.2, however, despite been granted sufficient opportunities, the reply was not filed and resultantly, defence of the petitioner was ordered to be struck off by the trial Court on 26.11.2025.

3. Impugning the aforesaid order dated 26.11.2025, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under the impression that the reply would first be filed on behalf of respondent No.2, the petitioner could not file his reply in the land reference. He further submits that in the absence of any defence being put-forth, the petitioner will not be able to defend the land reference in an effective manner which definitely will cause serious prejudice to his rights therein.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Mr. Puru Jarewal, DAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and vehemently opposes the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner while submitting that the petitioner was granted sufficient opportunities to file the written statement but the effort on his part was only to delay the proceedings in the land reference and thus, the impugned order warrants no interference.

5. After hearing learned counsel for parties and gone through the paper-book as well as the zimni orders passed by the trial Court, which have been annexed with the petition as Annexures P-2 to P-7, I find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner.

6. In the humble opinion of this Court, in case, the impugned order is allowed to stand, the petitioner would be deprived of his right to file the written statement; he would not be able to put-forth his defence to the case set up by respondent No.1-applicant in the reference. Though, there appears to be lack of due diligence on the part of the petitioner while contesting the land reference, however, considering the fact that ever since the passing of impugned order, the proceedings in the said reference have not moved further, as such, it would be in the interest of justice to grant one effective opportunity to the petitioner, so as to file written statement in order to protect his substantial rights involved in the reference.

7. Even the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Kailash Vs. Nanhku and ors.”, 2005 (2) RCR (Civil) 379, while considering the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, has held that the same being part of procedural law is therefore directory in nature. Still further, keeping in view the substantial justice, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Siddalingayya Vs. Gurulingappa and ors.”, 2018 (1) RCR (Civil) 543, under somewhat similar circumstances, 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 he will not be able to contest the case set up by the respondent(s).

8. Accordingly by adopting a pragmatic approach; rather than being hyper-technical, the present revision petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 26.11.2025 passed by the trial Court, is ordered to be set aside, thereby granting one effective opportunity to the petitioner so as to file his written statement on the date fixed before the trial Court.

9. The aforesaid order shall be subject to payment of costs of Rs.30,000/-, to be deposited by the petitioner, out of which, a sum of Rs.20,000/- shall be deposited with the trial Court on the date fixed and the same shall be disbursed in favour of respondent No.1-plaintiff and the remaining Rs.10,000/- be deposited with Nishkam Sewa High Court Lawyers Society, Account No.43373609961, SBI High Court Branch, Chandigarh, IFSC Code:SBIN0050306 within 10 days from today.

Petition allowed.

********