BAI LALITA Vs. SHARDABEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal raises a short, yet an important point as to whether the decision of the Court of the Civil Judge (S.D.) passed under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, is appealable to the High Court under Section 54 of the Act, and if not, whether any such decision (where the amount or subject-matter involved is less than Rs. 10,000) is appealable, and if so, only to the High Court or to the Court of the District Judge, under whom it is subordinate. The lands bearing S. Nos. 120, 243, 163, 170, 236, 237, 228 and 227 came to be acquired by the Government for the purpose of widening the National Highway No. 8 from Bareja to Ahmedabad. The claim for compensation was made before the Special Lenad Acquisition Officer at Ahmedabad and the compensation was awarded to the claimants as per the award Ex. 2 produced in the case. Of the various claimants Nos. 1, 4, 6, 10, 12 and 14 were the landlords, while the others were tenants. There arose a dispute amongst the landlords and tenants, only in regard to the apportionment of the amount of compensation awarded for the lands under acquisition. The Land Acquisition Officer, therefore, referred the dispute for apportionment of the compensation amongst the claimants under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act' to the District Court at Narol. The Compensation Case No. 70/62 on the file of the District Court, Narol, then came to be transferred for disposal in accordance with law to the Court of the Civil Judge (S.D.) at Ahmedabad under Section 3(d) of the Act. The learned Judge found that the claimants who were the tenants in respect of the lands under acquisition were entitled to get 5 annas share in a rupee as against the landlords-claimants getting 11 annas share in a rupee. In the result, he passed an order directing the amount of compensation to be so apportioned. Feeling dissatisfied with that order passed on 24th June, 1963 by Mr. D.B. Naik, Civil Judge (S.D.) Narol, only Bai Lalita, daughter of Chhotalal, the owner of S. Nos. 236, 237 and 238, who was claimant No. 12 before the Court has come in appeal. The respondent No. 1 Shardaben, widow of Manibhai Channabhai, the claimant No. 13 before the Court below, claimed compensation on the ground of her being a tenant in respect of those lands.

(2.) Before this appeal could be heard on merits, a preliminary point was raised by Mr. Shah, the learned advocate for the respondent No. 1, that since this appeal is directed only against a decision of the Court under Section 30 of the Act, as contemplated under the provisions of the Act no appeal is competent before this Court under Section 54 of the Act. According to him, even if such a decision amounts to a decree and is appealable under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, the appeal would lie to the District Court, at Narol, it being a Court competent to hear an appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, read with Section 8 of the Bombay Civil Courts Act as applied to this State,-the claim being or even the amount to be apportioned being only Rs. 2722.37 nP., and that way less than Rs. 10,000/-. Now, it is common ground that the learned Civil Judge (S.D.) was competent to hear such references as also references under Section 18 of the Act, in view of the expression 'Court' defined in Section 3(d) of the Act as including the Court of Civil Judges (S.D.) to which the matter under this Act is transferred by the "Principal Court of the original jurisdiction in the acre." The only provision under which an appeal lies to the High Court against any decision of such a "court" contemplated in Section 3(d) in the proceedings under this Act, in Section 54 of the Act. It runs thus:-

(3.) Now it is true that there is no other provisions in the Act which permits an appeal against an order or decision of the Court passed under Section 30 of the Act. But we cannot lose sight of the fact, that by reason of Section 53 of the Act, the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code are made applicable to any proceedings before the Court under this Act. As contemplated therein, they apply to all proceedings before the Court under this Act "save in so far as they may be inconsistent with anything contained in this Act." Section 54 of the Act also proceeds by saying that an appeal under Section 54 shall be subject to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure applicable to appeals from original decrees. Thus the right of appeal against any other order or decision which is not inconsistent with the provisions contained in Section 54 remains under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code. That is not taken away and on the contrary one has to avail of the provisions relating to appeal in the Civil Procedure Code, in matters under the Act provided there is a decision or order of the Court not falling under Section 54 of the Act. As stated in Section 30 of the Act, reference is for a decision of the Court and a decision given by that Court determines the rights of the parties in respect of their disputes. It is in the nature of a decree as contemplated in Section 2(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, and thus, in our view, it becomes appealable under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code.