B. GANGA & OTHERS Vs. LAO., POCHAMPADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these three appeals, the point raised is whether Letters Patent Appeal lies under Clause 15 of tire Letters Patent against the judgment of the learned single Judge rendered in an appeal against the judgment of the trial Court in a reference under Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.

(2.) The objection raised by tine Registry is that no Letters Patent Appeal lies against the judgment of a learned Single Judge rendered in proceedings arising out of a reference under Sec. 18 of the Act. The Registry has relied upon the decision of a Full Bench of the Madras High Court reported in Manavikraman Tirumalpad Vs. Collector of Nilgirls, AIR 1919 Madras 626 : ILR 41 Madras 943.

(3.) Sri P.S. Murty, learned Counsel for the appellants points out that the above said decision of the Full Bench of the Madras High Court was rendered before the amendment of the Act, by Act 19 of 1921 and cannot therefore, be relied upon for the purposes of the amended provisions of Sec. 54 read with Sec. 26 of the Act as amended. The learned Counsel has placed reliance upon the decisions of the Lahore High Court in Har Dial Vs. Secretary of State, AIR 1923 Lahore 275 and Nagpur High Court in Narayanadas Daga Vs. Ganapathrao, AIR 1944 Nagpur 284.