PARSHOTAM DASS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Every time reforms are carried in substantive law or procedural law, there is resistance to its introduction and efforts are made at least to confine such reforms to the convenient limits suitable to a litigant. Many of the reforms recommended in the Code of Civil Procedure in the report of Justice V. S. Malimath are sought to be concretised and implemented by the amendments of various provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, 'the Code'). Two Acts have now been enacted by the Parliament which are known as the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999 (for brevity, '1999 Act') and the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 (for brevity, '2002 Act'). Both the Acts have been enforced w.e.f., 1-7-2002. The basic object of these reforms appears to be speedy disposal of cases, inter alia, by curtailing the right of intra Court appeal. It is in this context that two significant questions have arisen before the Letters Patent Bench during the course of hearing of the instant Letters Patent Appeal No. 1246 of 1999. An objection was raised on behalf of the respondents that the letters patent appeal was not maintainable in view of Section 100-A as amended and enforced by 2002 Act. On the basis of preliminary objection, the Letters Patent Bench framed two significant questions having wide ramifications which have arisen on account of amendment and enactment of Section 100-A of 2002 Act. As the aforementioned two questions are likely to arise in a large number of cases and were thus of vital public importance, the Letters Patent Bench felt the necessity of referring those questions to a Full Bench for authoritative settlement. The questions referred to the Full Bench are as under :- "(1) Whether Letters Patent Appeal would lie against the judgment and decree passed by the learned single Judge in an appeal arising from an original or appellate decree or order? (2) Whether the Letters Patent Appeals filed before 1-7-2002 are liable to be dealt with and decided in accordance with amended Section 100-A of the C.P.C.?" FACTS :

(2.) Brief facts of the case necessary to put the controversy in its proper perspective may first be noticed. On 17-10-1978, State of Haryana - respondent No. 1 issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, 'the Act') expressing its intention to acquire the specified area of land. After following the procedure of hearing objections under Section 5-A of the Act, a notification under S. 6 of the Act was issued on 3-8-1979. The award was announced by the Collector on 2-6-1982 by fixing the rates of different parcels of land. Against the order of Collector, petitions were filed under Sections 18 and 30 of the Act praying for enhancement and apportionment of compensation. The appellants in the instant letters patent appeal filed Land Acquisition Case No. 152/4 of 1983 claiming that they were entitled to apportionment of the compensation awarded to respondent Nos. 3 to 6 on the ground that they were tenants under those respondents. The Additional District Judge, Karnal enhanced the amount of compensation and held that Parshotam Dass was in cultivating possession of the land as tenant in Khasra No. 9094 at the rate of Rs. 100.00 as rent which he continued cultivating. It was further held that Hari Ram father of all the appellants was in cultivating possession of Khasra No. 9095 since 1954 And that he died in the year 1971. Feeling aggrieved from order dated 12-3-1986 passed by the Additional District Judge, respondent Nos. 3 to 6 filed Regular First Appeal No. 1399 of 1986. The aforementioned appeal was allowed reversing the findings recorded by the Additional District Judge in favour of the appellants by holding that the appellants have failed to prove their tenancy over the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 9094 and 9095. Therefore, they were held not entitled to apportionment of compensation determined for the acquired land. The appellants who claim themselves to be the tenants under respondent Nos. 3 to 6 have preferred the instant appeal challenging the judgment dated 6-6-1991 of learned single Judge. The objection has been raised on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 to 6 that by virtue of Section 100-A of 2002 Act, the letters patent appeal is not maintainable. ARGUMENTS - APPEAL MAINTAINABLE :

(3.) We have heard Shri Ashok Aggarwal, learned counsel for the tenant-appellants, Shri R. S. Mittal who has appeared for the interveners and supported the proposition that the letters patent appeal was maintainable and Shri Jaswant Singh, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. We have also heard Shri M. L. Sarin, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 to 6 who are the claimant-owners and Shri D. S. Bali, learned counsel for the interveners who has supported the proposition that no letters patent appeal is competent.