KHUSHI RAM Vs. INDERJIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Some land was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act (for brief the Act) for the construction of Pong Dam. An award was also made. Khushi Ram demanded a share in the amount of compensation claiming to be the son of Raju Ram (since deceased) from his first wife. He made a petition dt. Sept. 12, 1971 which was forwarded by the Collector under S.30 of the Act to the court of District Judge, Kangra at Dharamsala. The reference was heard by the learned Addl. District Judge, Dharamsala, who disposed it of by his order dt. Dec. 6, 1975. He dismissed the claim of Khushi Ram who, then, approached this court for redress by filing a first appeal against order (No. 27 of 1975).

(2.) When the appeal was taken up for hearing, an objection was raised that no appeal lay under S.54 of the Act against an order made under S.30 and that, therefore, the present appeal was incompetent.

(3.) The question whether an order made under S.30 of the Act was assailable in an appeal under S.54 or not, has been engaging the attention of various courts in this country for long. The preponderance of judicial opinion is that though an order of this nature cannot be assailed in an appeal filed under S.54 of the Act, it can be challenged in an appeal under S.96. C.P.C., subject to payment of the necessary amount of court fee. The solitary case, taking a contrary view, which was brought to my notice, was that of Lt. Col. Michael A.R. Skinner v. Addl. District Judge Ist. Hissar, 1981 0 PunLJ 11. There too, the learned Judge who decided the case did not go into the matter in depth but only considered the question whether an order made under S.30 of the Act should be permitted to be assailed in the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of the court under Art.226, of the Constitution or else, the petitioner should be left to pursue his alternative remedy. This Is what the learned Judge said in paras 2 and 3 of the report :