AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hegde, J.
(1) The only point argued before us is that the respondent had no right to file an appeal against the order of the Subordinate Judge, apportioning the compensation. According to Sri Gopivallabha Iyengar, an order passed under S. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, is not a "decree" as it is not a decision in a suit. In support of his contention he has relied on the ratio of the decision in (Delhi) Venkatarama Doss Pantulu Vs. (Delhi) Bheema Rao, . That was a case arising under S. 84 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act.
But there is no doubt that its ratio decidendi helps the appellant. The High Court in India have consistently taken the view that a decision under S. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, is a "decree" and as such the aggrieved party has a right of appeal. See A. Mahalinga Kudumban and Others Vs. Theetharappa Mudaliar, ; (Janapareddi) Venkata Reddi Vs. (Janapareddi) Adhinarayana, ; Muthuvijaya Raghunatha v. Karuppiah. AIR 1939 Mad 76 and Raghunathdas Harjivandas Vs. The District Superintendent of Police, . The decision in (Delhi) Venkatarama Doss Pantulu Vs. (Delhi) Bheema Rao, , cannot be considered as good law in view of the decision of the Privy Council in AIR 1939 133 (Privy Council) . It was so held in Chikkanna Chettiar alias V.S. Nanjappa Chettiar Vs. V.S. Perumal Chettiar and Another, which was a case arising under S. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Full Bench held that:
"The Subordinate Judge who is appointed under S. 3(d) of the Act to decide a dispute with regard to the allocation of compensation money does not constitute a Court of record, but admittedly he does constitute a Civil Court. Hence an appeal lies from the decision of a Subordinate Judge appointed by the Provincial government under S. 3(d) to decide a dispute referred by the Collector under S. 30 of the Act."
The High Court in India have consistently taken the view for the last over twenty-five years that a decision under S. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is a "decree". The learned Counsel for the appellant has not brought to our notice any decision which has taken a contrary view.
(2) In the result, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed with costs.
(3) Appeal dismissed.