DEEP CHAND AND ORS. versus LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] 1 S.C.R. 530 · Decided: 02-02-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, N. VENKATACHALA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

~/ 
A 
DEEP CHAND AND ORS. 
' 
' 
v. 
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 2, 1994 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] 
Land Acquisitin Act, 1894: Sectio'!s 4, 6, & 49(1)-Acquisition of 
r 
Ian~ Land owner's objection that Act should not be put in pperation without 
c 
acquiring entire land including his factory and office buildings-Reference 
made to Civil Court-Civil Cowt detennining that Land proposed to be ac-
quired did not fonn integral part of claimant's factory and office build-
ings-Held, detennination under s. 49(1) not being a decree within the 
meaning of s. 2(2), C.P.C. appeal under s. 96 C.P.C. does not lie. 
D 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: S. 2(2)-Decree--Detennination under 
.~, 
s. 49(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is not a decree. 
Words and Phrases: "Adjudication"-Meaning of 
E 
The State Government acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 
1894, land measuring 2 acres 46 cents belonging to the appellant-land 
owner. The appellant filed an objection under s. 49(1) of the Act contending 
that the entire land including his factory and office buildings should also 
be acquired without which the Act should not be put in operation. A 
reference was made to the Civil Court which held that the land proposed 
F 
to be acquired did not form an integral part of appellant's factory and 
office buildings. The elaimant filed an appeal before the High Court. The 
State contended that the order of Civil Court not being a decree was not 
appealable under s. 96, C.P.C. Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the 
appeal as not maintainable. Bence the appeal by special leave. 
G 
_._ 
It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the reference under 
second proviso to s. 49(1) of the Act made to the Civil Court was decided 
----
by it in its ordinary civil jurisdiction; determination by the Civil Court bad 
the trappings or characteristics of a final adjudication between the appel-
lant and the Land Acquisition Officer and, therefore, it was a decree within 
H the meaning of S. 2(2), C.P.C. 
530 
r 
·.-1--
DEEP CHAND v. LAND ACQN. OFFICER 
531 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1.1. The determination under Section 49(1) of the Land 
Acquisition Act, 1894 is not a decree within the meaning of s. 2(2) C.P.C. 
and, therefore, an appeal under s. 96 C.P.C. does not lie against such a 
determination. [536-D] 
Krishnamoorthi v. Sp/. D.C. Kumbakonam, A.I.R. 1936 Madras 514; 
Mahesh Sissr v. Province of Bengal, A.I.R. 1939 Cal. 733 and Sarat Chandra 
v. Secretary of State, A.I.R. 1919 Cl. 86, referred to. 
A 
B 
1.2. Decree means a formal expression of an adjudication wherein C 
the court conclusively and finally determines the rights of the parties with 
regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit. [534-B] 
1.3. In the determination under s. 49(1) of the Act no rights of the 
parties to adjudication are involved. Howev~r, a right is given to the land 
owner to object only to acquisition of part of the building, etc. without D 
acquiring the whole of the house, manufactory or building. The Court has 
to examine whether the objection is sustainable requiring the whole of the 
property, including the house, manufactory or other building, to be ac-
quired or portion of the property proposed for acquisition, should be left 
out of acquisition for full and unimpaired use of the house, manufactory E 
or building. It is one of determination of the convenient use and enjoyment 
of the unacquired portion of the land or a building, manufactory or the 
~ 
other house. If the answer is in favour of the land owner, the only choice 
left to the Government is either to acquire the whole property or drop the 
proposed acquisition. It brings about no other consequence. Obviously, the F 
decision by the Civil Court only hinges upon the convenient or unimpaired 
use and enjoyment of the house, manufactory or building with the residue 
of the land left over after acquiring the other property. In that behalf it 
cannot be said to be an adjudication of any dispute or a right finally 
settling any claim between the parties. [535-D-G] 
Black's Law Dictionary, (Sixth Edn.) p. 42, referred to. 
2. The order under section 49(1) is not an award. Amendment of ss. 
G 
26 and 54 of the Act has made no difference in this regard. Section 26(2) 
specifies that an award.is a decree and appealable under s. 54. [536-B, CJ H 
j 
532 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1994] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
Secretary of State v. R. Narayanaswami Ch

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.