Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Smt. Premasila Dei and ors. - 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. - division), khurda & remitted the matter back for reconsideration of the entire oral as well as documentary evidence available on record with the observation that the acquired land has potential value & the respondents are entitled for-higher compensation.pradip mohanty, j.1. this first appeal is directed against the judgment & order dated 11.10.1996 passed by the learned civil judge (sr. division), khurda in l.a. misc. case no. 72 of 1981.2. the facts of the case, as borne out from the records, are that the government of orissa vide notification published under section 4(1) of the land acquisition act, 1894 on 02.06.1980 acquired the land measuring ac. 0.850 decimals out of plot no. 21 measuring ac. 1.240 decimals under khata no. 26 of mouza handiola under tangi police station for construction of micro waves station by the post & telegraphs department. the land acquisition officer vide his order dated 31.03.1980 awarded a total sum of rs. 8,797.50 paise as compensation. being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation, the respondents filed a petition & the matter was referred to the court of civil judge (sr. division), khurda under section 18 of the land acquisition act. the learned civil judge (sr. division), khurda vide order dated 04.12.1982 valued the land at rs. 50,000 per acre with 15% as additional compensation & held that the respondents were entitled to a sum of rs. 49,875. against that order, the appellant filed first appeal no. 108/1983. the respondents filed their cross objection. by order dated 05.04.1995 after hearing both the parties this court set aside the order passed by the learned civil judge (sr. division), khurda & remitted the matter back for reconsideration of the entire oral as well as documentary evidence available on record with the observation that the acquired land has potential value & the respondents are entitled for-higher compensation. after remittance, the trial court reconsidered the oral & documentary evidence & fixed the valuation of land in question at the rate of rs. 1,00,000 per acre & directed the appellant to pay the respondents compensation at that rate with interest at the rate of 10% per annum since the date of acquisition of land till final payment. hence this appeal. 3. heard miss mishra, learned additional standing counsel appearing for the appellant, & learned counsel for the respondents. perused the records. since the notification is of the year 1980, the acquired land is located at a distance of 50 to 60 yards from kalupadaghat railway station, a bazaar is located nearby, around the acquired land an ice factory, mills etc have come in to existence & the matter is lingering for more than 29 years, this court disposes of the appeal in the spirit of lok adalat by reducing the valuation of the acquired land to rs. 97,000 from rs. 1,00,000. the respondents are entitled to get compensation at the rate of rs. 97,000 per acre with 10% interest, as awarded by the trial court, besides statutory benefits.