SHARDA DEVI versus STATE OF BIHAR

Citation: [2002] 2 S.C.R. 404 · Decided: 13-03-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Disposed off

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SHARDA DEVI 
1 
v. 
>-
ST ATE OF BIHAR 
MARCH 13, 2002 
B 
[G.B. PATTANAIK, S.N. PHUKAN AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Section 54-Letters Patent Appeal-
Maintainability of-Before Letters Patent Bench against judgment and decree 
c of Single Judge of High Court passed in appeal preferred under Section 54-
Held, such letters patent appeal is maintainable-If there is conflict between 
Section 54 and provisions of letters patent, provisions should be construed 
harmoniously-Interpretation of Statutes. 
The question referred to the present three Judge Bench is whether letters 
D patent appeal is maintainable before the letters patent Bench against the 
judgment and decree of the Single Judge of High Court pasSed in an appeal 
preferred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 
~ 
In appeal before this Court appellant contended that on a plain reading 
of Section 54 it is clear that a letters patent appeal would not lie against a 
E judgment passed by a Single Judge of the High Court in an appeal under 
Section 54. 
Respondent contended that a letters patent appeal would lie against a 
judgment ofa Single Judge passed in an appeal filed under Section 54 of the 
.... 
Act. 
F 
Answering the question referred to it, the Court 
HELD: 1. A letters patent is the charter u.nder which the High Court is 
established. The powers given to a High Court under the letters patent are 
G 
akin to the constitutional powers of a High Court. Thus when a letters patent 
grants to the High Court a power of appeal, against a judgment of a Single 
-" 
Judge, the right to entertain the appeal would not get excluded unless the 
"' 
concerned statutory enactment excludes an appeal under the letters patent. 
[409-B-C) 
H 
2. A letter patent is not an enactment. It is the charter of the High Court. 
404 
SHARDA DEVI v. STATE 
405 
A non-obstante clause in Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 cannot A 
cover the charter of the High Court. (409-Fj 
..... 
3. Section 26 of the Act provides that every award shall be a decree 
and the statement of grounds of every award shall be a judgment By virtue 
of the letters patent "an appeal" against the judgment of a Single Judge of 
the High Court would lie to a Division Bench. Section 54 of the Act does not B 
exclude an appeal under the letters patent. The word 'only' occurring 
immediately after the non-obstante clause in Section 54 refers to the forum 
of appeal. It provides that the appeal will be to the High Court and not any 
other Court e.g. the District Court The term "an appeal" does not restrict it 
to only one appeal in the High Court. The term "an appeal" would take within c 
its sweep even a letters patent appeal. The decision of the Division Bench 
rendered in a letters patent appeal will then be subject to appeal to the 
Supreme Court. Read in any other manner there would be a conflict between 
Section 54 and the provision of letters patent It is settled law that if there is 
a conflict, attempt should be made to harmoniously construe the provisions. 
Therefore, under Section 54 of the said Act there is no bar to the D 
maintainability ofa letters patent appeal. (410-D-Gj 
Basant Kumar v. Union of India., ( 19961 11 SCC 542, relied on. 
Baljit Singh and Ors. etc. v. State of Haryana and Ors., C.A. Nos. 1663-
1968 of 1982, overruled. 
E 
Asia Industries v. Sarup, (1965( 2 SCR 756, distinguished. 
Mahi/ Devi v. Chander Bhan, AIR (1995) Delhi 293; Mohabbat Singh v. 
Crown, AIR (1923) Lahore 274; Narayanda' Dago v. Ganaptrao, AIR (1944) 
Nagpur 284 and M Srinivas v. Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, 
F 
Hyderabad, (1990) 3 Andhra Law Times 3, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 14198 of 
1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 1.5.96 of the Patna High Court in 
LP.A. No. 39 of 1988. 
G 
' 
A. Sharan and Gopal Prasad for the Appellant. 
... 
Ashok Mathur, Prem Prakash and Rajesh Pathak B.B. Singh (NP) for 
the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H 
406 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2002] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
$.N. V ARIA VA, J. 1. This Appeal is against a Judgment dated 25th 
April, 1988. 
>. r 
' 
2. Briefly stated the facts are as follows: 
The Appellant claims that by a Registered Deed of Settlement dated 
B 24th April, 1954 the land was settled in favour of one Dev Narayan Prasad. 
On 19th February 1955, by yirtue of Section 3(1) of the Bihar Land Reforms 
Ii 
Act, the land vested in the State of Bihar. The Appel

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