MAHLI DEVI Vs. CHANDER BHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question for consideration by the Full Bench is whether a Letters Patent appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent applicable to this court is maintainable in view of the provisions of Sec.54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The reference has arisen on the basis of an objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent questioning the maintainability of the present appeal. Reliance was placed on two judgments of Division Benches of this court in L.P.A. No. 97 of 1980 (Basant Kumar vs. UOI) and L.P.A. 148 of 1988 (Jugti (deceased) through LRs. vs. UOI). These judgments are based on a judgment of the Supreme Court dated 30.7.1987 in Civil Appeals No.1663 to 1668 of 1982 Baljit Singh etc. vs. State of Haryana, holding that a Letters Patent appeal is not maintainable against the judgment of a Single Judge of the court. It is noted in the referring order dated 22.8.1994 that the said Supreme Court decision arising in the context of proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act was based on a concession. It was conceded before the Supreme Court that a Letters Patent appeal did not lie against a judgment of a Single Judge of the same court. In view of the fact that the Supreme Court decision is based on a concession, as also in view of certain other decisions noticed in the referring order this reference was made by the Division Bench to the Full Bench.

(2.) Since the matter is of considerable importance relating to the procedure of this court, we proceed to answer the reference, though we cannot help noticing the fact that in this very appeal in which the reference order was passed, a Division Bench of this court had earlier through a reasoned order passed on 25.1.1992 rejected the objection of the respondent regarding maintainability of the appeal. In all fairness the counsel for the parties should have brought the said order to the notice of the Bench at the time the reference order was passed on 22.8.1994. The same counsel who are appearing for the parties at present had appeared before the court when the objection about the maintainability of the appeal was decided. Yet when the same objection was raised again on 22.8.1994 before the Division Bench, the earlier order was never brought to the notice of the Court.

(3.) Coming to the merits of the case it is necessary first to refer to the statutory provisions. Section 54 Land Acquisition Act runs as under:-