The Deputy Collector of Madura and Another vs Ramasami Pillai

Abdur Rahim, J.—This is an appeal from an award of the District Judge of Madura in certain land acquisition proceedings and the

preliminary question is whether Article 156 of the Limitation Act applies. The court-fees were paid on the memorandum of appeal 1 year and 149

days out of time, and if Article 156 applies the appeal would be barred. The question is of first impression and cannot be said to be quite free from

difficulty. The Land Acquisition Act gives a right of appeal by Section 54, which lays down:

Subject to the provisions of the Coda of Civil Procedure applicable to appeals from original decrees, an appeal shall lie to the High Court from the

award or from any part of the award of the Court in any proceedings under this Act.

There is no special period of limitation provided for in the Land Acquisition Act, nor is there any allusion, unless it be by implication of this very

section, to the Limitation Act. Article 156 of the Limitation Act provides a period of 90 days for ""appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,

to a High Court, except in the cases provided for by Article 151 and Article 153,"" the time to run from ""the date of decree or order appealed

from."" The argument on behalf of the appellant is that you must; read the first column of the article.) as meaning that the appeals provided for here

are those the tight to which is conferred by the Code of Civil Procedure, and it is contended that this interpretation is strengthened by the language

of column 3. There is no direct authority on the point. There is however a ruling of the Calcutta High Court, Aga Muhammad Hamadani v. Cohen

(l886) ILR 13 Cal 221 the reasoning of the decision in which seems to apply to the present question. There the objection was raised with

reference to an appeal provided for under the Burma Courts Act, XVII of 1875. Section 49 of that Act provided for an appeal to the High Court

of Calcutta in cases where the amount of value of the subject-matter exceeded Rs. 3,000 and was less than Rs. 10,000. Wilson and Porter, JJ.,

interpreted the words ""Appeals under the Code of Civil Procedure"" in Article 156 of the Limitation Act as meaning appeals, the procedure in

respect of which is governed by the Civil Procedure Code. They say:

The Limitation Act, schedule II, Article 156, when it speaks of the Civil Procedure Code, is, on the face of it, speaking of a Code which relates to

procedure, and does not ordinarily deal with substantive rights and the natural meaning of an appeal under the CPC appears to us to be an appeal

governed by the CPC so far as procedure is concerned.

It seems to us that this is the correct interpretation of Article 156. There seems to be no good reason for saying that an appeal under the CPC

means only an appeal the right to prefer which is conferred by the Code itself. On the other hand it would not be straining the language of the

article too much to hold that an appeal, the procedure with respect to which, from its inception to its disposal, is governed by the Civil Procedure

Code, may rightly be spoken of an an appeal under the Code; this interpretation seems to us to be strengthened by the reference in Article 156

itself to Article 151 of the same schedule. Article 151 provides for appeals from a decree or order of the High Court in the exercise of its original

jurisdiction. Now though the right to appeal from such decrees or orders is not given by the CPC but by the Letters Patent Appeal yet Article 156

speaks of such appeals as appeals under the Civil Procedure Code. That also tends to show that what is meant by the legislature is appeals, the

hearing and disposal of which is governed by the rules of procedure laid down in the Civil Procedure Code.

As regards column 3 there can be no doubt after the decision of the Privy Council in Rangoon Botatoung Company, Ltd. v. The Collector,

Rangoon ILR (l913) Cal. 21, that an award under the Land Acquisition Act is not a decree passed in the ordinary jurisdiction of a Civil Court. But

their Lordships themselves point out in that case that appeals from awards as provided for in Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act are governed

as to their procedure from the date of the filing of the appeal to its disposal by the rules provided for in the Civil Procedure Code: and in the

Letters Patent Appeal in this Court in Manavikraman Tirumalpad v. The Collector of the Nilgiris ILR (1918) Mad. 943 it has been held that

Section 98 of the CPC applies. Though the award of the Land Acquisition Judge is not a decree or order for purposes of further appeal from the

decision of the High Court in appeal, nevertheless the procedure laid down in the CPC with reference to appeals from original decrees which are

also made applicable to appeals from orders by Rule 2 of Order XLIII, Civil Procedure Code, governs appeals u/s 54 of the Land Acquisition

Act although in the rules the word ''decree'' is used. It is to be pointed out that the provisions of the CPC regarding procedure to be followed in

appeals from original decrees are incorporated in the Land Acquisition Act by virtue of Section 54. If the first column of Article 156 includes, as

we hold, appeals provided for by Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act there is really no difficulty created by the use of the words ""decree or

order"" in the third column. Then we think it rightly pointed out in Dropadi v. Hira Lal ILR (1912) All. 496 that there are several Acts, for example,

the Succession Act, the Probate and Administration Act, and the Land Acquisition Act, which make the CPC applicable to proceedings under the

Act and give a right of appeal to the High Court, but do not prescribe any period of limitation for the appeal. It has always been assumed,

probably rightly, that such appeals are under the CPC governed by what is now Article 156 of Schedule 1 to the Limitation Act and by the general

provisions of the Act also.

Attention has been drawn by Mr. A. Krishnaswami Ayyar to certain special Acts, such as the Calcutta Improvement Act and the Bombay

Improvement Act, in which special rules of limitation are provided for. That, to our mind, does not affect the question. It might have been perhaps

better if the legislature enacting the Land Acquisition Act had also provided some special provision or made an express and direct reference to the

provisions of the Limitation Act. But that is another question.

We hold upon a proper construction of Article 156 that it applies to appeals provided for by Section 54 of ''the Land Acquisition Act.

This appeal must be dismissed with costs.