LexNIADAR AND ORS. ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. ETC. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-
NIADAR AND ORS. ETC. ETC.
A
V.
STATE OF fIARYANA AND ANR. ETC. ETC.
JANUARY 25, 1991
[RANGANATH MISRA, CJ, A.M. AHMADI AND
B
R.M. SAHA1, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Section 54-Appeal to Supreme
Court-When lies.
The appellant filed petitions as appeals under section 54 of the
Land Acquisition Act. As they were not accompanied by any certificate
from the High Court, the Registry sought directions as to whether the
petitions should be treated as appeals under section 54 of the Land
Acquisition Act, or as special leave petitions under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India.
Disposing of the petitions, this Court,
HELD: 1. An appeal under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act
would lie to this Court only on a certificate granted by the High Court
in terms provided in Order 45. [137H-138A] ·
._;,,_
2. In the present cases, as the i>etitioners did not approach the High
Court as required by Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act read with
Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Code, the matters cannot be registered
under Section 54. [138A]
c
D
E
3. The Registry is directed to register these appeals as special
F
leave petitions under Article 136 and place them for preliminary hear-
ing before a suitable Bench. [138B]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: D. Nos. 3490, 3673,
3674, 3689-3699, 3700-3703, 4168 and 4169 of 1989.
Appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
S.N. Bhatt for the Appellants.
The following Order of the. Court was delivered:
135
G
H
A
B
c
.D
E
F
G
H
136
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1991] 1 S.C.R.
These petitions were filed as appeals under Section 54 of the
Land Acquisition Act. Since they were not accompanied by any
Certificate from the High Court that they raised substantial questions
of law which were fit to be decided by this Court, the Registry of,this
Court has sought direction as to whether they should be treated as
appeals under the aforesaid section or as special leave petitions under
Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act is extracted below:
"54. Appeals in proceedings before Court-Subject to the
. provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( 5 of 1908),
~
applicable to appeals from original decrees, and notwith-
standing anything to the contrary in any enactment for the ·
-
time being in force, an appeal shall only lie in atly proceed-
ings under this Act to tl~e High Court from the award, or
from any part of the ():Ward, of the Court and from any
decree of the High Court passed on such appeal as afore-
-""r'
said an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court subject to the
provisions contained in Section 110 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, and in Order XL V thereof."
It has stood in this form since 1921 except that the expression, 'His
Majesty in Council' was substituted, in 1950, with words 'the Supreme
Court'. Prior to 1921, there was no right td appeal to the Privy
Council. The Section was amended by Section 3 of the Land Acquisi-
tion (Amendment) Act XIX of 1921 as it was held by the Privy Council
that in the absence of any provision in the Act no appeal against the
decree of the High Court under the Land Acquisition Act could be
entertained. But the amendment while permitting an appeal made it
subject to the provisions of Section 110 and Order 45 of the Civil
Procedure Code. The substantive right of appeal conferred by Section
54 was thus circumscribed and it could only be entertained either if the
valuation of the subject matter was as specified or the qu
0estion of law
raised was substantial. In 1950, when the Supreme Court was set up
under the Constitution,· its original, constitutional, appellate and
,special jurisdictions were spelt out .in Articles 131 to 136. The appel-
late jurisdiction arising out of civil proceedings was provided by Arti-
cle 133. Originally it provided for an appeal as a matter of right if the
subject matter of dispute was not less than the specified amount or the
High Court certified it to be fit case for being decided by this Court. In
1973, the article was amended and the jurisdiction to entertain an
appeal arising out of civil proceedings became confine_d to grant of
-
---
-{
NIADAR v. STATE OF HARYANA
137'
certificate by the High Court that the case involved a substantial ques-
A
tion of law and that in the opinion of the High Court the said question
needed to be decided by this Court. In keeping with this amendment Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.