Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 923 (PNJ)

State of Punjab v. Hans Raj

2004-08-19

K.S.GAREWAL, V.K.BALI

body2004
JUDGMENT V.K. Bali, J. (Oral) - By this common order we propose to dispose of 36 connected Letters Patent Appeals bearing Nos. 1974 to 1109 of 1994 filed under Clause X of Letters Patent against the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 15.7.1994. 2. The short order, passed by learned Single Judge, impugned in this appeal at regular hearing, reads thus:- "Compensation awarded is not excessive. Dismissed." 3. The record of the case shows that 753 Bighas and 9 Biswas of land was acquired vide notification dated 17.1.1986 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act) for a public purpose viz. making Government Engineering College at Bathinda. Follow up declaration under Section 6 of the Act came to be published on 17.6.1986. The Land Acquisition Collector vide Award dated 26.2.1987 assessed the market value of land @ Rs. 65,000/- per acre. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, learned District Judge enhanced the market value of the land and determined it @ Rs. 1.20 lacs per acre. 4. Aggrieved by the Award of learned District Judge, the State filed various appeals, which after admission, were dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order, reproduced above. 5. By virtue of Section 53 of the Act, Civil Procedure Code is to apply to all proceedings before the Court. By virtue of Section 54 of the Act, subject to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, applicable to appeals from original decrees, and notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any enactment for the time being in force, an appeal shall only lie in any proceedings under this Act to the High Court from the award, or from any part of the award, of the Court and from any decree of the High Court passed on such appeal as aforesaid, an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court subject to the provisions contained in Section 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and in Order 44 thereof. 6. To the first appeal that may be filed by virtue of Section 53 of the Act, provisions of Code of Civil Procedure are applicable in proceedings before the Court under this Act. 6. To the first appeal that may be filed by virtue of Section 53 of the Act, provisions of Code of Civil Procedure are applicable in proceedings before the Court under this Act. By virtue of Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, an appeal shall lie from every decree passed by any court exercising original jurisdiction to the Court authorised to hear appeals from the decisions of such Courts. By virtue of sub-section (4) of Section 96, no appeal shall lie, except on a question of law, from a decree in any suit of the nature cognizable by Courts of Small Causes, when the amount or value of the subject-matter of the original suit does not exceed Rs. 10,000/-. A conjoint reading of all the clauses of Section 96 would make it abundantly clear that the first appeal may be from the decree passed by Court of Small Causes, when amount or value of the subject-matter of the original suit does not exceed Rs. 10,000/-. 7. The first appeal, thus, filed by the State against the judgment of learned District Judge dated 16.2.1994, was competent both on law and facts. We have gone through the judgment of learned District Judge and on a reading thereof, it cannot be said that the same did not involve arguable points. In any case, even if the first appeal was to be dismissed in limine, which did not happen in the present case as the appeal was infact admitted to a regular hearing, the same ought to have been decided by passing a speaking order. 8. Inasmuch as no reasons have been given by learned Single Judge while dismissing the Regular First Appeal and for the added reasons that the appeal was competent both on law and facts and arguable points did arise, we are of the view that the order of learned Single Judge dated 15.7.1994 deserves to be set aside and the case remanded to learned Single Judge for deciding the matter afresh in accordance with law. So ordered. 9. We have been informed during the course of arguments that claimant- respondents appeals arising out of the judgment of the learned District Judge dated 15.2.1994, are also pending disposal before this Court. Some of the First Regular Appeals, numbers whereof have been given by Ms. Nirmaljit Kaur, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab are as follows : R.F.A. Nos. 9. We have been informed during the course of arguments that claimant- respondents appeals arising out of the judgment of the learned District Judge dated 15.2.1994, are also pending disposal before this Court. Some of the First Regular Appeals, numbers whereof have been given by Ms. Nirmaljit Kaur, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab are as follows : R.F.A. Nos. 1803 to 1809, 1953, 2321, 1927, 2258, 2259, 2427, 2428, 2429, 2694, 2806 to 2808 of 1994. Let all the State Regular First Appeals as also the claimant-respondents appeals, as mentioned above, and other connected appeals, if any, be listed for hearing together. 10. At this stage, Ms. Nirmaljit Kaur, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab informs us that the Letters Patent Bench had granted stay at the motion stage. The operative part of the order of the Letters Patent Bench dated 9.8.1994 reads thus :- "In the meantime, the appellant shall deposit 50 per cent of the compensation before the executing Court. It shall be released to the respondents-landowners on their furnishing adequate security to the satisfaction of the Court." The above order passed by Letters Patent Bench shall enure during the pendency of Regular First Appeals as well. Order acordingly.