State of Orissa Vs. Harihara Pradhan - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- sections 100-a [as inserted by act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & letters patent, 1865, clause 10: [dr. b.s. chauhan, cj, l. mohapatra & a.s. naidu, jj] letters patent appeal order of single judge of high court passed while deciding matters filed under order 43, rule1 of c.p.c., - held, after introduction of section 110a in the c.p.c., by 2002 amendment act, no letters patent appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge of a high court. a right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. it is pertinent to note that section 100-a introduced by 2002 amendment of the code starts with a non obstante clause. the purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. the legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. it is well settled that the definition of judgment in section 2(9) of c.p.c., is much wider and more liberal, intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to clause (a) to (w) of order 43, rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. amended section 100-a of the code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a single judge of a high court, no further appeal shall lie. even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under section 2(9) means a statement given by a judge on the grounds of a decree or order. thus the contention that against an order passed by a single judge in an appeal filed under section 104 c.p.c., a further appeal lies to a division bench cannot be accepted. the newly incorporated section 100a in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a single judge to a division bench notwithstanding anything contained in the letters patent. the letters patent which provides for further appeal to a division bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a single judge. it has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an appeal to the high court. it has not made any provision for filing appeal to a division bench against the judgment or decree or order of a single judge. no letters patent appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a single judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a special act. sections 100-a [as inserted by act 22 of 2002] & 104:[dr. b.s. chauhan, cj, l. mohapatra & a.s. naidu, jj] writ appeal held, a writ appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by single judge in a writ petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india. in a writ application filed under articles 226 and 227 of constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under article 226, a writ appeal will lie. but, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge in exercising powers of superintendence under article 227 of the constitution. - 2. facts leading to the present appeal are like this -the state government acquired land of the respondent to the extent of ac. 7. on perusal of the impugned judgment along with evidence adduced on behalf of the claimant, i am satisfied that the learned civil judge (senior division) has taken into account the annual yield of the land in question while determining its value for the purpose of awarding compensation.m. papanna, j.1. state of orissa brought this appeal under section 54 of the land acquisition act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'the act'). the appellant challenged judgment of the learned civil judge (senior division), deogarh in l. a. case no.'72 of 1999'awarding a sum of rs. 1,02.48 1.92 p. for acquired land of respondent. rs. 3000/- for acquired trees standing thereon and rs. 5000/- for changing of residence.2. facts leading to the present appeal are like this -the state government acquired land of the respondent to the extent of ac. 5.12 decimals in jambunal mouza for construction of rengali dam project. in this connection there was notification under section 4(1) of the act being published in orissa gazette vide eog no. 1030 dated 18.7.1982. the state fixed the market value of the acquired land at. rs. 22,160.50 p. the claimant challenged the award of compensation as fixed by the government before the learned civil judge (senior division) deogarh.3. the claimant on receipt of notice under section 9(3) of the act claimed compensation basing on the annual net yield multiplied by twenty. according to him. the acquired land is fertile for which the compensation fixed by the state government is quite inadequate. he claimed compensation of rs. 35,000/- per acre basing on the annual yield multiplied by twenty. he pleaded that he was growing paddy crops and thereafter mung on the land. he was getting 20 quintals of paddy and four quintals of mung per acre. the acquired trees standing on the land in question have also been under valued. on these grounds he claimed higher compensation from the state government.4. the government pleader entered appearance on behalf of the state and filed written statement of defence stating that the claimant is not entitled to compensation as demanded by him.5. the learned civil judge (senior division), deogarh adjudicated the claim application basing on the annual yield of the land in question and ultimately awarded compensation of rs. 1,02,481.92 p. for acquired land, rs. 3000/- for acquired trees and rs. 5000/- for changing of residence. the state challenged this award in the present appeal.6. the learned additional government advocate challenged the judgment on several grounds. his main contention is that the compensation awarded by the learned civil judge (senior division) is exorbitantly high. on the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment.7. on perusal of the impugned judgment along with evidence adduced on behalf of the claimant, i am satisfied that the learned civil judge (senior division) has taken into account the annual yield of the land in question while determining its value for the purpose of awarding compensation. by applying correct principle to the facts of this case he came to hold that the market value of rs. 22,160/- for the acquired land as fixed by the government is too inadequate. in fact, the land acquired by the state is class-i variety of land backed by irrigation facilities from d.p. canal. paddy and mung were produced by the claimant from the land in question. the o.p. did not adduce any rebuttal evidence to the evidence adduced on behalf of the claimant. on the whole, no illegality has been committed by the learned civil judge (senior division), deogarh in determining the land value and awarding compensation for acquisition of the land with standing trees thereon, for which 1 am not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment.8. in the result, the impugned judgment is confirmed. the appeal fails being devoid of any merit. it is dismissed accordingly. no costs.