Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Motte Rajaram vs Revenue Divisional Officer And Anr. on 13 February, 2006
Equivalent citations: 2006(3)ALD199, 2006(2)ALT477
Author: B. Seshasayana Reddy
Bench: B. Seshasayana Reddy
JUDGMENT D.S.R. Varma, J.
1. Heard both the sides.
2. This second appeal, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for brevity "C.P.C"), is before us by way of reference made by a learned Single Judge of this Court expressing his view that the appeal suit A.S. No. 12 of 2004, which was filed before the learned II Additional District Judge, Adilabad, was not maintainable and, as a matter of fact, the said appeal suit A.S.No.12 of 2004 ought to have been filed before this Court under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity "the Act"). The learned Single Judge further opined that if an appeal is filed before the District Judge, the same amounts to providing parallel appeals under the Act and hence, the learned Single Judge was of the prima facie view that the appeal suit filed before the learned II Additional District Judge, Adilabad, was not maintainable. However, in order to have an authoritative pronouncement on this aspect, the matter had been referred to a Division Bench. Hence, the second appeal is before us under the caption "for admission".
3. The appellant is claimant No. 2, Respondent No. 1 is the Referring Officer and Respondent No. 2 is Claimant No. 1, respectively, in the appeal suit A.S.No.12 of 2004.
4. For the sake of convenience, in this order, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the appeal suit.
5. The undisputed facts are that the land in dispute was acquired; possession was taken by the Government and that there were certain rival claims between claimant Nos. 1 and 2. Consequently, a reference was made under Section 30 of the Act for depositing the amount, as envisaged under Section 31(2) of the Act, in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Adilabad. The reference was taken on file and was numbered as O.P. No. 13 of 2000. After hearing both parties in the said O.P., the order went in favour of Claimant No. 1, while rejecting the claim of Claimant No. 2.
6. Having felt aggrieved, Claimant No. 2 filed an appeal before the II Additional District Judge, Adilabad, which was numbered as A.S.No.12 of 2004 and eventually the same was dismissed on merits, by judgment and decree, dated 18-1-2005, which is under challenge before this Court by way of present second appeal.
7. When the matter came up for admission, the learned Single Judge had expressed a doubt regarding the correctness of the judgment rendered by this Court in Dy. Director of Agriculture v. S. Ramanadham . The learned Single Judge further opined that maintaining an appeal before the II Additional District Judge, Adilabad, challenging the order passed in the O.P., may prima facie amounts to providing parallel appeals under the Act.
8. At the outset, we are of the considered view that this issue is no longer res integra. In fact, the self-same issue had fallen for consideration quite sometime back before the High Court of Madras in Mahalinga v. Theetharappa AIR 1929 Mad. 223. Of course, there are other judgments on this subject rendered by other High Courts also.
9. The same issue had also fallen for consideration before a learned Single Judge of this Court in S. Ramanadham's case (supra).
10. In the said case also, the point for determination was, whether the order passed by the lower Court against which an appeal was preferred was an award within the meaning of Section 54 of the Act. In the said case also, an objection had been raised by the office regarding the maintainability of the appeal before this Court, of course, in view of the fact that the value of the appeal was less than the amount prescribed and further that since the order of the lower Court was a decree within the meaning of Section 96 C.P.C., an appeal lies only to the District Court. Similar is the question before this Court in this second appeal.
11. While dealing with this issue, the learned Single Judge of this Court in S. Ramanadham 's case (supra) had taken into account the decision of the Privy Council in Ramachandra v. Ramachandra AIR 1922 PC 80 : ILR 45 Mad. 320. In the said decision Dy. Director of Agriculture v. S. Ramanadham, (supra), it was observed by the learned Single Judge that the award as constituted by statute is nothing but an award, which deals with the area of the land, the quantum of the compensation and the apportionment among the interested persons in the property. Things go well so long as there are no disputes or conflict of decisions between the persons interested over the amounts awarded. However, the learned Single Judge further observed that the moment the amount has been deposited in the Court, as postulated under Section 31(2) of the Act, the functions of the award would get ceased; and all that is left would be a dispute between interested people as to the extent of their interest and further that such dispute forms no part of the award.
(emphasis supplied by us)
12. Same is the view taken by the High Court of Madras in Mahalinga 's case (supra). In the said case also, the question that had fallen for consideration was, as to whether the reference under Section 30 of the Act was an award within the meaning of Section 54 of the Act and hence, no appeal would lie under Section 54 of the Act. In the said decision, it was held as under:
A decision in a reference under Section 30 is not an award within the meaning of Section 54. The decision of a Court as to the rights of the contending parties on a reference under Section 30 cannot be said to be an award under the Act. After the award has been made the Court determines who are entitled to the whole or a portion of the award.
13. In fact, the above observations were already extracted by the learned Single Judge of this Court in S. Ramanadham's case (supra) wherein it was observed that a decision rendered in a reference under Section 30 of the Act would have to be treated as a decision and consequently 'a decree' within the meaning of Section 2, Clause (2) C.P.C., and hence, an appeal lies under the provisions of Section 96 C.P.C.
14. The decision of the Madras High court in Raghunatha Duraisingam v. Karuppiah AIR 1939 Mad. 716, was also to the same effect.
15. Further, the above referred two judgments rendered by the High Court of Madras Mahalinga v. Theetharappa and Ramachandra v. Ramachandra, (supra) have been, in fact, had again fallen for consideration before a Full Bench of the High Court of Madras in Chikkanna v. Perumal AIR 1940 Mad. 474. The said Full Bench, while referring and affirming the views expressed in the above referred two judgments, further observed that an order must be taken to decide that an order not merely the order on appeal but an order determining a reference under Section 18 or under Section 30 of the Act. Further that, it was admitted that there was no difference in principle between the two sections and consequently, they are to be regarded as a decree but not as an award.
16. Since all the above decisions have already been discussed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, we are not proposing to go in detail any further about various other judgments, which are, in fact, in line with those decisions.
17. Since a Full Bench of the High Court of Madras had already confirmed the earlier views expressed by the High Court of Madras, which are referred to already, the judgment of the said Full Bench is, in fact, binding on us.
18. We may, perhaps, add few observations.
19. At the outset, it is to be noted that the expression 'award' is not defined under the Act. Section 18 of the Act is available to a party in a particular contingency i.e., while seeking enhancement of the quantum of the compensation awarded. Section 18 of the Act is a part of Part III. Section 30 of the Act forms part of Part IV. Section 30 of the Act deals with the subject as to how disputes regarding the apportionment are to be settled. The said Section 30 of the Act envisages that when a dispute regarding the apportionment arises after the award was passed under Section 11 of the Act, the competent authority may refer such dispute to the decision of the Court.
20. Even though Sections 18 and 30 of the Act are for two different purposes and in two different contingencies, both of them form part of Sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the Act.
21. For ready reference, Section 18 of the Act is extracted, to the extent relevant, which is thus:
18. Reference to Court :-(1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court, whether This objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested.
22. A bare perusal of the above provision makes it abundantly clear that in both the cases i.e., when the quantification is disputed or the amount quantified was claimed by different persons having interest, such disputes have to be necessarily referred to the competent authority.
23. Section 26 of the Act is essentially an important provision to understand and meet the present contingency.
24. For ready reference, Section 26 of the Act is extracted, which is thus:
26. Form of awards :-(1) Every award under this part shall be in writing signed by the Judge, and shall specify the amount awarded under clause first of Sub-section (1) of Section 23, and also the amounts (if any) respectively awarded under each of the other clauses of the same sub-section, together with the grounds of awarding each of the said amounts.
(2) Every such award shall be deemed to be a decree and the statement of the grounds of every such award a judgment within the meaning of Section 2, Clause (2), and Section 2, Clause (9), respectively, of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (5 of 1908).
25. Sub-section (2) of Section 26 of the Act makes it clear that every award shall be deemed to be a decree and judgment within the meaning of Section 2, Clause (2) and Section 2, Clause (9) respectively, of the Code of Civil Procedure.
26. Even though conspicuously, under Section 30 of the Act, the expression 'award' was not employed, but specifically postulated under Sub-section (2) of Section 26 of the Act that an 'award' shall be deemed to be a decree and judgment. Therefore, when an award was passed under Part in of the Act, the same itself is to be treated as a decree and judgment. A decision rendered in a dispute between the parties inter se, shall, all the more, with more liberality has to be treated as a decree and judgment.
27. Hence, in fact, there is discernible difference on this aspect, between Section 18 and Section 30 of the Act. The only distinction, which is already pointed out is, the former, deals with a dispute regarding the quantum of compensation, and the latter deals with the inter se disputes.
28. The most significant factor to be noticed is Section 54 of the Act does not deal with a decision rendered under Section 30 of the Act, whereas Section 18 of the Act deals with an award, which again, as already pointed out, has to be treated as a decree and judgment. Hence, virtually, there is a vacuum between a decision rendered under Section 30 of the Act and the procedure to be adopted later under Section 54 of the Act. But, the only link is Section 53 of the Act.
29. Section 53 of the Act specifically states about the application of the provisions of C.P.C., and consequently, any decision rendered by the competent Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 30 of the Act has to be necessarily dealt with or guided by the procedure prescribed under the Code of Civil Procedure or otherwise any decision rendered by the competent Civil Court after reference to it under Section 30 of the Act would virtually become inexecutable or ineffective.
30. With the above observations and in view of the settled law, which has been discussed above, the appeal suit A.S. No. 12 of 2004 filed before the II Additional District Judge, Adilabad, is maintainable, and in consequence thereof, the second appeal also is maintainable.
31. The reference is answered accordingly.
32. Registry is directed to list the matter before the learned Single Judge for 'admission' after obtaining suitable orders from the Hon'ble the Chief Justice.