Case Note & Summary
The appellants, Mohanlal Chandmal Phafat and Manoharlal s/o Chandmal Phafat, owned land in village Adgaon Khurd, Akola. The State of Maharashtra issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 8.5.1983, and possession was taken on 12.1.1987. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at Rs. 25,000 per hectare. The appellants sought a reference, and the Reference Court (District Judge, Akola) enhanced compensation to Rs. 900 per acre. The State appealed to the High Court in First Appeal No. 60/1992. A learned Single Judge partly allowed the appeal, modifying compensation to Rs. 65,000 per hectare. The appellants filed a Letters Patent Appeal against this judgment. The respondent-State raised a preliminary objection as to maintainability, arguing that Section 100-A CPC bars further appeals. The appellants contended that the amendment to Section 100-A (effective 1.7.2002) does not apply retrospectively to proceedings initiated in 1987, and that the Letters Patent power is not curtailed. The Division Bench, after hearing arguments and considering precedents, held that the LPA is maintainable. The Court noted that the amendment to Section 100-A does not affect pending proceedings and that the Letters Patent is the charter of the High Court. The Court relied on Sharda Devi v. State of Bihar, AIR 2002 SC 1357, and Asha Joshi v. National Insurance, 2008 (1) Mh.L.J. 724. The matter was directed to be listed for hearing on merits.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Letters Patent Appeal - Maintainability - Section 100-A CPC, Section 54 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - The Court considered whether an LPA lies against a single judge's judgment in a land acquisition appeal. The Court held that the amendment to Section 100-A CPC, which bars further appeals, does not apply to proceedings initiated before its commencement on 1.7.2002. Since the land acquisition proceedings were initiated in 1987, the LPA is maintainable. The Letters Patent power is not taken away by the amendment. (Paras 3-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against the judgment of a learned Single Judge passed in a First Appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in view of the amendment to Section 100-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
The Court held that the Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable. The matter is directed to be listed for hearing on merits.
Law Points
- Letters Patent Appeal maintainability
- Section 100-A CPC not applicable to pending proceedings
- Section 54 Land Acquisition Act
- 1894
Case Details
2018 LawText (BOM) (02) 105
Letters Patent Appeal No. 419/2010 in First Appeal No. 60/1992
B.P. Dharmadhikari, Mrs. Swapna Joshi
Mr. S.N. Bhattad for appellants, Mr. H.R. Dhumale, AGP for respondent
Mohanlal Chandmal Phafat and Manoharlal s/o Chandmal Phafat
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Letters Patent Appeal against judgment of learned Single Judge in First Appeal under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought to challenge the judgment and decree dated 21.08.2009 passed by learned Single Judge in First Appeal No.60/1992, which modified compensation awarded by Reference Court.
Filing Reason
Appellants were dissatisfied with the compensation amount fixed by the learned Single Judge at Rs. 65,000 per hectare instead of the Reference Court's award of Rs. 900 per acre.
Previous Decisions
Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs. 25,000 per hectare; Reference Court (District Judge, Akola) enhanced to Rs. 900 per acre; learned Single Judge modified to Rs. 65,000 per hectare.
Issues
Whether the Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against the judgment of a learned Single Judge passed in a First Appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in view of Section 100-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that LPA is maintainable as per Section 54 of L.A. Act and Section 100-A amendment (2002) does not apply to proceedings initiated before 1.7.2002; Letters Patent power cannot be taken away by CPC.
Respondent-State objected to maintainability, contending that Section 100-A CPC bars further appeals against judgments of single Judge in appeals.
Ratio Decidendi
The amendment to Section 100-A CPC, which bars further appeals, does not apply retrospectively to proceedings initiated before its commencement on 1.7.2002. The Letters Patent power of the High Court is not taken away by the amendment, and the LPA is maintainable.
Judgment Excerpts
By this Letters Patent Appeal, the appellants have challenged the judgment and decree dated 21st August, 2009 passed by learned single Judge in First Appeal No.60/1992...
At the outset, Mr. Dhumale, learned AGP for respondent-State strongly objected to the very maintainability of the present LPA...
Mr. Bhattad, learned counsel for appellants contended that as per the provisions of Section 54 of the L.A. Act, Letters Patent Appeal would lie in this Court...
Procedural History
Notification under Section 4 of L.A. Act on 8.5.1983; possession taken on 12.1.1987; LAO award on 25,000 per hectare; reference to District Judge, Akola (LAC No.3/1987) awarded Rs. 900 per acre on 22.7.1991; State appealed to High Court in First Appeal No.60/1992; learned Single Judge modified compensation to Rs. 65,000 per hectare on 21.8.2009; appellants filed LPA No.419/2010.
Acts & Sections
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Section 4, Section 54
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 100-A
