LexSACHIDA NAND LAL @ SACHIDA NAND SHAH versus STATE OF BIHAR, (NOW JHARKHAND)
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A [2008]· 1~ S.CR. 830 . SACHIOA NAN.b. [AL @ SACHIDA NANO SHAH . . .. . :• . : . : . v . . STATE OF BiHAR,- (NOW .JHARKHAND) ... (Civli Appear Na'.· 6442 of 2000) • •.' •· t • NOVEMBER 7, 2008 ,. · [C· .. K. THAKKER AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] .. Appeal: U~tter Patent Appeal from order in first appeal - Power of Division Bench of High Court hearing LPA - C Held: Division Bench of High Court has same powers as exereised by Single Judge of High Court in appeal from original decree - Letters Patent before Division Bench is not in the ·nature of appeal from an appellate decree i.e. second appeal but it is continuation of appeal from original decree. D In land acquisition proceedings, the appellant- claimant was aggrieved with the award of compensation. He sought reference for enhancement of. the compensation amount. Reference Court partly allowed E the reference. Still dissatisfied, appellant filed appeal in the High Court .. Single Judge of High Court partly allowed the appeal. Against the said order, a Letter Patent Appeal . was filed before Division Bench of High Court. Division Bench of High Court without entering into questions ·of fact and law dis.missed the appeal. Hence the instant F appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The appeal from original decree was preferred by the claimant before the High Court, which G was heard· bY' the Single Judge of the High Court. S.54 of the Land Acquisition Act provides for filing Appeals in proceedings before the Court. In view of express provision .as ·to filing of appeal under the Act as also the H 830 ' ' SACHIOA NANO LAL @SACHIOA NANO SHAH v. STATE 831. OF BIHAR, (NOW JHARKHANO) provision relating to filing of Letters Patent as applicable 1 A to the High Court of Patna, an order passed by a Single Judge of the High Court can be challenged by filing an intra-Court appeal before a Division Bench of the same Court. The claimant was, therefore, justified in exercising the right of filing Letters Patent Appeal and accordingly, B appeal was preferred before a Division Bench. [Paras 11 and 12] [834-F-G; 835-B-C] 1.2. Since the appeal before the Single Judge was appeal from original decree, i.e. First Appeal, the Division C Bench ought to have considered the correctness or otherwise of the order passed by the Single Judge by exercising same powers as exercised by the Single J1.1dge in the appeal from original decree. The Letters Patent before the Division Bench was not in. the nature D of appeal from an appellate decree, i.e. Second Appeal, but it was continuation of appeal from original decree, i.e. First Appeal. In the circumstances, the Division Bench committed an error of law in dismissing the appeal in limine by a brief order without considering the merits. [Para 13) [835-D-F] Asha Devi v. Dukhi Sao, AIR (1974) SC 2048 and GaudiyaMission v. Shobha Bose & Anr. JT (2008) 1 SC 384, relied on. Case Law Reference: AIR (1974) SC 2048 JT (2008) 1 SC 384 relied on relied on Para 15 Para 17 E F CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. G 6442 of 2000. · From the final Judgment and Order dated 1.3.2000 of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi in L.P.A. No. 362 of 1999.(R). H .. 832 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 15· S.C.R. A Gopal Prasad for the Appellant. ~,, .. )- B.S. Singh for the Respondent. _ "fhe 1Judgr:nent of the Court was delivered by B C.K. THAKKER, J. 1. The present appeal is filed against judgment and order dated June 22, 1999 passed by a single Judge of the High Court of Patna (Ranchi Bench) in Appeal from Original Decree Nos. 228 and 229 of 1989 and confirmed ~' by the Division Bench on March 01, 2000 in Letters Patent \ c Appeal No. 362 cif 1999. · 2. Shortly stated the facts of the case are that on February 16, 1978, a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was issued for acquisition of land bearing Khata Nos. 277 and 107 situated D in the town· of Lohardaga of Ranchi for construction of agricultural market-yard. According to the appellant, the - ,,.., Collector divided the land into two categories; (i) category 'ka' ..... and (ii) category 'kha'. The land situated up to 150 feet from the road was categorized as 'ka' whereas land situated beyond E 150 feet from the road was categorized as 'kha'. The Collector assessed the value of the land of category '
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.