The Hindustan Sanitary-ware and Industries Ltd. and anr. Vs. the State of Haryana 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. order1. this order will dispose of civil revisions nos. 1250, 1251, 1253, 1255, 1256, 1258, 1259, 1261 and 1263 to 1265 of 1970. 2. the facts are not in dispute. some land in villages parnala and bahadurgarh, district rohtak, was admittedly acquired for two companies, namely, the hindustan sanitaryware and industries limited, bahadurgarh, and the hindustan national glass manufacturing company limited, bahadurgarh. it is further admitted that the compensation amount has to be paid by these two companies. the collector gave his award and against his decision the landowners made applications under section 18 of the land acquisition act that the case be referred to the learned district judge for enhancement in the compensation. 3. the two companies made an application before the learned additional district judge that they be permitted to appear and adduce evidence and show that there should be no increase in the compensation which had been awarded by the collector. 4. this application was contested by the various landowners on the ground that the two companies had no locus standi to move the same. their contention prevailed with the learned judge and against that order the two companies have filed these revision petitions. 5. from the facts stated above, it is apparent that the compensation amount has to be paid by the two companies. if the said amount is increased by the learned additional district judge on a reference under section 18 of the land acquisition act, it would be the two companies, who would be prejudiced. i do not see any reason as to why under these circumstances they should not be permitted to lead evidence and say that the compensation amount awarded by the collector was adequate and that there should not be any further increase in it as demanded by the landowners. learned counsel for the respondents could not point out on what principle of law the request of the two companies could be resisted. no authority even was cited by him that under similar circumstances any court had ever held that the persons, who had actually to pay the compensation could not be allowed to lead evidence and say that the compensation amount be not enhanced. it is noteworthy that by virtue of section 53 of the land acquisition act, the provisions of the code of civil procedure applied to all proceedings before the learned additional district judge and he had. therefore, ample powers under order 1. rule 10, code of civil procedure, also to implead the said two companies as parties. 6. learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the provisions of part vii of the land acquisition act had not been complied with while acquiring the land in this case. this circumstance might or might not have been relevant for the purpose of deciding as to whether the acquisition in the instant case was valid or not. but this question has already been decided by this court in this very case and it is reported as jaishi ram goel v. state of punjab, air 1962 punj 177. 7. i would, therefore, accept these petitions and quash the impugned order passed by the learned additional district judge. in the circumstances of this case, however, i will leave the parties to bear their own costs. 8. petitions accepted.

Judgment:
ORDER

1. This order will dispose of Civil Revisions Nos. 1250, 1251, 1253, 1255, 1256, 1258, 1259, 1261 and 1263 to 1265 of 1970.

2. The facts are not in dispute. Some land in villages Parnala and Bahadurgarh, District Rohtak, was admittedly acquired for two companies, namely, The Hindustan Sanitaryware and Industries Limited, Bahadurgarh, and The Hindustan National Glass Manufacturing Company Limited, Bahadurgarh. It is further admitted that the compensation amount has to be paid by these two companies. The Collector gave his award and against his decision the landowners made applications under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act that the case be referred to the learned District Judge for enhancement in the compensation.

3. The two companies made an application before the learned Additional District Judge that they be permitted to appear and adduce evidence and show that there should be no increase in the compensation which had been awarded by the Collector.

4. This application was contested by the various landowners on the ground that the two companies had no locus standi to move the same. Their contention prevailed with the learned Judge and against that order the two companies have filed these revision petitions.

5. From the facts stated above, it is apparent that the compensation amount has to be paid by the two companies. If the said amount is increased by the learned Additional District Judge on a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, it would be the two companies, who would be prejudiced. I do not see any reason as to why under these circumstances they should not be permitted to lead evidence and say that the compensation amount awarded by the Collector was adequate and that there should not be any further increase in it as demanded by the landowners. Learned counsel for the respondents could not point out on what principle of law the request of the two companies could be resisted. No authority even was cited by him that under similar circumstances any Court had ever held that the persons, who had actually to pay the compensation could not be allowed to lead evidence and say that the compensation amount be not enhanced. It is noteworthy that by virtue of Section 53 of the Land Acquisition Act, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure applied to all proceedings before the learned Additional District Judge and he had. therefore, ample powers under Order 1. Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure, also to implead the said two companies as parties.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the provisions of Part VII of the Land Acquisition Act had not been complied with while acquiring the land in this case. This circumstance might or might not have been relevant for the purpose of deciding as to whether the acquisition in the instant case was valid or not. But this question has already been decided by this Court in this very case and it is reported as Jaishi Ram Goel v. State of Punjab, AIR 1962 Punj 177.

7. I would, therefore, accept these petitions and quash the impugned order passed by the learned Additional District Judge. In the circumstances of this case, however, I will leave the parties to bear their own costs.

8. Petitions accepted.