Full Judgment
M.M. Das, J.
1. This is an appeal under the Letters Paten'; against the order dated 20.5.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W. P. (C) No. 2884 of 2005 which was filed by the appellant.
2. Facts of the case reveal that the lands belonging to the respondents were acquired for establishment of the appellant's Industry at Paradeep in the year 1982. Reference with regard to the compensation payable being made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, an award was passed in favour of the respondents. Against the said award, First Appeal No. 147 of 1994 was filed by the appellant before this Court which was disposed of on 26.9.2001 directing payment of compensation at the rate of Rs. 16,000/- per acre along with other statutory benefits to the respondents. The said decree for payment of compensation was put to execution in Execution Case No. 1 of 2002 which is pending before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagatsinghpur. The appellant after entering appearance in the execution proceeding filed an application claiming that as its application under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provision) Act, 1985 (for short 'the SICA') made to the BIFR has been registered as Case No. 238 of 2003 and, as an enquiry is pending, no proceeding for recovery of money will lie/can continue. The executing Court though initially stayed the execution proceeding and subsequently directed the appellant to deposit the amount payable under the decree, the appellant approached this Court in W. P. (C) No. 1640 of 2004 against the said order. The said writ application was disposed of remanding the matter back to the executing Court with a direction to examine the questions raised by the appellant, afresh. The executing Court after rehearing the application of the appellant again directed for recovery of the decretal dues against which the appellant filed W. P. (C) No. 7513 of 2004 again before this Court. This Court on considering all the contentions raised by the appellant, by order dated 10.4.2004 while quashing the order impugned in the said writ application again remanded the matter back for reconsidering the application filed by the appellant for stay of the execution proceeding. The executing Court reheard the matter and by order dated 25.2.2005 rejected the prayer of the appellant. The appellant thereafter challenged the said order of the executing Court in W. P. (C) No. 2884 of 2005 on various grounds. The learned Single Judge by his order dated 20.5.2005 referring to the previous order/judgment of this Court passed in W. P. (C) No. 1640 of 2004 and holding that the appellant has failed to comply with the direction of this Court and could not produce the authenticated and/or certified copies of the papers under the SICA, concluded that no illegality has been committed by the executing Court in passing the order challenged in the said writ application. It is this order Of the learned Single Judge, which is impugned in the present appeal.
3. Mr. Ganeswar Rath, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently argued that the learned Single Judge has lost sight of certain materials which are already available on record and acted erroneously in concluding that the appellant has not complied with the direction given by this Court in the previous writ applications.
4. Mr. S.R. Patnaik, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents urged that the present appeal is not maintainable in view of the settled position of law. Reliance was placed by Mr. Patnaik on the decisions in the cases of Umaji Keshao Meshram and Ors. v. Smt. Radhikabai and Anr. : [1986]1SCR731 and Chunta Nayak and fifty Ors. v. State of Orissa, represented by Collector, Kendrapara and five Ors. 2002 (I) OLR 139.
5. In view of the rival submissions made at the bar, we feel it appropriate to consider the question of maintainability of the appeal at the first instance. In a judgment dated 28.2.2005 rendered in Writ Appeal No. 58 of 2005 Rasamani Dei v. Naba Kishore Acharya and Anr. 2005 (II) OLR 779 a similar question with regard to the maintainability of the writ appeal against an order passed by the learned Single Judge in a writ application challenging the order of the Civil Court, was considered by us in detail. Relying on the ratio of the decisions in the cases of New Kenilworth Hotel (P) Ltd. v. Orissa State Finance Corporation and Ors. : [1997]1SCR395 , Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra : [1966]3SCR744 , Gobinda Chandra Tripathy and Anr. v. Rama Chandra Tripathy and Ors. 85 (1998) CLT 261 and Shiv Shakti Co-op. Housing Society, Nagpur v. Swaraj Developers and Ors. : [2003]3SCR762 and further taking note of the amendment to Section 100-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, we have held that the writ application filed against an order of a Civil Court is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in which this Court either by the learned Single Judge or by a Division Bench only exercises the supervisory jurisdiction under the said Article 227 of the Constitution. We have, therefore, held that no appeal under the Letters Patent would be maintainable against the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court which is passed in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.
6. Considering the above, we find that the ratio of the said decision squarely applies to the facts of the present case. We are, therefore, of the view that the present writ appeal is not maintainable under the Letters Patent. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed as not maintainable.
S.B. Roy, C.J.
7. I agree.