BANSHI MAHTO Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHEN these appeals were filed the office put up a note indicating that in terms of Sec. 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 , from any decree of the High Court passed in an appeal, an appeal would lie to the Hon ble Supreme Court of India. The matter was, accordingly, submitted for orders with regard to the maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal.

(2.) IN order to appreciate the objection indicated by the office, Sec. 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 , is set out:

(3.) MR . Shivnath urged that the view expressed by the Full Bench of the Patna High Court in its Ranchi Bench in the case of Sharda Devi also fell for consideration of the Hon ble Supreme Court, which affirmed the view expressed by the Full Bench. The Supreme Court clarified the position that the judgment in Baljit Singh 'scase was based on a concession and also on the judgment in the South Asia Industries case which did not deal with Sec. 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. Having regard to the view expressed by the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court, Mr. Shivnath submitted that in keeping with the principles relating to the interpretation of Statutes, a harmonious construction would have to be given to the provisions of Sec. 54 of the Land Acquisition Act in relation to Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. In this regard Mr. Shivnath referred to another Full Bench decision of the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Madhukar Trimbaklal V/s. Shri Sati Godawari Upasani Maharaj of Sakori and Ors., AIR 1940 Nagpur 39, and several other judgments which need not detain us.