HANUMANTHAPPA AND Vs. KORISETTY SIVALINGAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only point argued before us is that the respondent had no right to file an appeal against the order of the Subordinate Judge, apportioning the compensation. According to Sri Gopivallabha Iyengar, an order passed under S. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, is not a "decree" as it is not a decision in a suit. In support of his contention he has relied on the ratio of the decision in Rajagopala Chettiar v. Hindu Religious Endowments Board, Madras, AIR 1934 Mad 103(2)(FB). That was a case arising under S. 84 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act. But there is no doubt that its ratio decidendi helps the appellant. THE High Court in India have consistently taken the view that a decision under S. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, is a "decree" and as such the aggrieved party has a right of appeal. See Mahalinga Kudumban v. THEetharappa Mudaliar, AIR 1929 Mad 223: Venkata Reedi v. Adhinarayana, AIR 1929 Mad 351; Muthuvijaya Raghunatha v. Karuppiah.AIR 1939 Mad 76 and Reghunathdas Harijivandas v. Dist. Superintendent of Police, Nasik. AWIR 1933 Bom 187. THE decision in Rajagopala Chettiar's case. AIR 1934 Mad 103(2)(FB), cannot be considered as good law in view of the decision of the Privy Council in Mt. Bhagwati v. Ramkali, AIR 1939 PC 133. It was so held in Chikkanna Chettiar v. V. S. Peruman Chettiar, AIR 1940 Mad 474(FB) which was a casearising under S. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. THE Full Bench held that:

(2.) IN the result, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed with costs.