Skip to content


Hanumanthappa and anr. Vs. Korisetty Sivalingappa - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberSecond Appeal No. 603 of 1953
Judge
Reported inAIR1960Kant139; AIR1960Mys139; ILR1959KAR1019
ActsMadras Hindu Religious Endowments Act - Sections 84; Land Acquisition Act - Sections 3 and 30
AppellantHanumanthappa and anr.
RespondentKorisetty Sivalingappa
Excerpt:
.....parties is void and it requires to be recalled. i.a. no. 1/2008 is allowed and i.a. no. iii/2008 is dismissed.   - air1934mad103 ,cannot be considered as good law in view of the decision of the privy council in mt......the compensation. according to sri gopivallabha iyengar, an order passed under s. 30 of the land acquisition act, is not a 'decree' as it is not a decision in a suit. in support of his contention he has relied on the ratio of the decision in rajagopala chettiar v. hindu religious endowments board, madras, : air1934mad103 . that was a case arising under s. 84 of the madras hindu religious endowments act.but there is no doubt that its ratio decidendi helps the appellant. the high court in india have consistently taken the view that a decision under s. 30 of the land acquisition act, is a 'decree' and as such the aggrieved party has a right of appeal. see mahalinga kudumban v. theetharappa mudaliar, air 1929 mad 223: venkata reedi v. adhinarayana, : air1929mad351 ; muthuvijaya.....
Judgment:

Hegde, J.

(1) The only point argued before us is that the respondent had no right to file an appeal against the order of the Subordinate Judge, apportioning the compensation. According to Sri Gopivallabha Iyengar, an order passed under S. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, is not a 'decree' as it is not a decision in a suit. In support of his contention he has relied on the ratio of the decision in Rajagopala Chettiar v. Hindu Religious Endowments Board, Madras, : AIR1934Mad103 . That was a case arising under S. 84 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act.

But there is no doubt that its ratio decidendi helps the appellant. The High Court in India have consistently taken the view that a decision under S. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, is a 'decree' and as such the aggrieved party has a right of appeal. See Mahalinga Kudumban v. Theetharappa Mudaliar, AIR 1929 Mad 223: Venkata Reedi v. Adhinarayana, : AIR1929Mad351 ; Muthuvijaya Raghunatha v. Karuppiah. AIR 1939 Mad 76 and Reghunathdas Harijivandas v. Dist. Superintendent of Police, Nasik. AWIR 1933 Bom 187. The decision in Rajagopala Chettiar's case. : AIR1934Mad103 , cannot be considered as good law in view of the decision of the Privy Council in Mt. Bhagwati v. Ramkali, AIR 1939 PC 133. It was so held in Chikkanna Chettiar v. V. S. Peruman Chettiar, AIR 1940 Mad 474(FB) which was a case arising under S. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Full Bench held that:

'The Subordinate Judge who is appointed under S. 3(d) of the Act to decide a dispute with regard to the allocation of compensation money does not constitute a Court of record, but admittedly he does constitute a Civil Court. Hence an appeal lies from the decision of a Subordinate Judge appointed by the Provincial government under S. 3(d) to decide a dispute referred by the Collector under S. 30 of the Act.'

The High Court in India have consistently taken the view for the last over twenty-five years that a decision under S. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is a 'decree'. The learned Counsel for the appellant has not brought to our notice any decision which has taken a contrary view.

(2) In the result, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed with costs.

(3) Appeal dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //