NANI BAI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these appeals, filed under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "the Act"), have been heard as connected matters and are being disposed by this common order.

(2.) BY the impugned awards the Reference Court (Ist Additional District Judge, Mhow), has dismissed the Reference Applications holding that no proper Reference in terms of sections 18 and 19 of the Act has been made. All these cases have rather, chequered history. The acquisition in question was made way back on 5.7.1985 when notice under section 4(1) of the Act was issued. Land Acquisition Officer passed the award on 6.11.1986. However, the possession of the land was taken much earlier i.e., on 15.10.1979. Earlier the References were decided by the Court below on 31.1.1989. However, on appeal, this Court by a common order passed in all these appeals on 19.2.1999, remanded all the case back to the Reference Court with direction to record evidence regarding sale and decide all the References afresh. However, the learned ADJ (Shri Shambhu Dayal Dubey) by his common. Award dated 13.10.1999 dismissed all the Reference Applications holding that there is no Reference in terms of sections 18 and 19 of the Act.

(3.) SHRI Mukati, learned Government Advocate has raised preliminary objection regarding tenability of these appeals and it is contended that since there is no Award, no appeal lies u/s. 54 of the Act. We are not impressed by the argument. Award does not mean that some amount should be awarded. Even when the Reference Application is dismissed by the Reference Court, it would also amount to an Award and an appeal shall lie u/s. 54. Even assuming that the order passed by the Court below is not an award in terms of section 26 of the Act and only revision would lie, as contended by Shri Mukati, then also it would not make any difference because the revision would also lie to this Court with no difference in the period of limitation. In either case, the challenge made before this Court being within limitation is required to be heard and decided by this Court. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the cases, we have no manner of doubt that the Award/order(s) passed by the Court below must be set -aside.